From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 00:27:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VEL9100841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:21:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f274.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.14.149]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VEL3t00812 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:21:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 May 2001 07:20:02 -0700 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:20:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:20:02 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2001 14:20:02.0861 (UTC) FILETIME=[C847F5D0:01C0E9DC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert >Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 15:43:00 +0100 > >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 > I play almost exclusively in nationally-rate events at the ACBL North American Championships, the Canadian National Team Championships and (previously) in a somewhat high-level IMP league. It is not my experience that players routinely ask about ALL alerted calls. This is especially true in non-competitive auctions. In competitive auctions, players usually ask about the call's meaning, but not all the time by any stretch of the imagination (especially when we make a 'negative' double - they usually assume it was a mistaken alert when we actually play neg free bids, thus our negative doubles must be alerted). I do always ask when I suspect that an alerted call (or if at the 4-level and above and after opener's 1st rebid - therefore no alerts) may be a splinter since a double by me of a splinter asks for the lead of the higher non-trump suit. Failure to ask in this situation could lead to some UI situations (although the opponents are unlikely to ever know). For some reason, even at very high levels of play, my opponents rarely explain, without some prompting, Ace-asking auctions. Dave Kent _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 01:00:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VEpCC02851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:51:12 +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-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 f4VEp5t02847 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:51:07 +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 f4VElTS14380 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 10:47:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531103917.00b0bd50@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 10:47:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <3B164154.1010301@interia.pl> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:04 AM 5/31/01, Konrad wrote: >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?? I believe so. While deciding just what's "official" in the ACBL is a non-trivial problem, Mr. Cohen's advice does reflect what has been published in the ACBL Bulletin without any statement to the effect that it is an author's opinion rather than official guidance. That makes it "official" as far as 99.9% of ACBL members are concerned, regardless of whether or not the ACBL may later acknowledge it as "officially official". In real life, I'm quite certain that Konrad's #1 has been so acknowledged; I'm less certain about #2, but believe it has. 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 Jun 1 01:11:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VF89G07178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:08:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VF82t07133 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:08:02 +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 RAA21545; Thu, 31 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 RAA14807; Thu, 31 May 2001 17:07:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010531171102.00857240@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:11:02 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <3B164154.1010301@interia.pl> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:04 31/05/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >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?? AG : it is *very* unlikely that alerting a bid that shouldn't have been alerted could in any way disadvantage opponents (well, perhaps by losing some time for the explanation) ; the reverse will often do. So, IMOBO, item #1 fully holds, and is give it as advice to partners and opponents alike. 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 Jun 1 01:30:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VFReY14093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:27:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VFRXt14054 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:27:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-58-175.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.58.175]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f4VFQQ922408; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:26:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000601c0e9e5$fe1d75a0$af3a7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200105301832.LAA28018@mailhub.irvine.com> <000b01c0e955$d6911c20$1e417bd5@dodona> <00dc01c0e997$b0f73b60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:59:38 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 31 May 2001 07:00 Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > 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." > +=+ I was very careful to make it clear that the Director/AC has a task to judge whether the case is sustained by the evidence. That could include evidence that a player invariably and without fail asked about every single alerted call. If he sometimes forgets to ask your argument is lost, as indeed if his manner of asking varies so that interest/disinterest may be suspected. To say 'there is no UI' is too sweeping; from time to time there may be. Such is the fallibility of man (and woman) that I doubt anyone's capacity to act with a consistency that will obviate UI; for this reason I think the honest line is to accept that when you ask it will create the UI, and trust partner. +=+ > > > 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. > +=+ I chose my words with care. An 'evident' call may have a LA but it would be the less suggested of them. The term is one that Harold Franklin used, and some of his eminent contemporaries. If you have noted my parallel email on the paucity of evidence, you will appreciate that my nose is twitching with respect to any possibility that South found a convenient way of safely suggesting his strength, or on the other hand that his methods called for a pass on, say, a balanced hand of 16 HCP or fewer. The case is not as straightforward as some of our co-contributors seem to think. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 01:55:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VFqsp19465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:52:54 +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-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 f4VFqmt19461 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 01:52:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4VFpoX80955 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:51:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531105925.00b05930@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 11:52:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] NOT asking about an alert In-Reply-To: <009a01c0e9d4$d9b796c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:23 AM 5/31/01, Rik.Terveen wrote: >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? In I, I would need to ask some questions. In particular, was dealer aware of the meaning of 1D, i.e. was he aware that responder's 1H was "a bid in opponents' suit"? If so, it would appear that he took advantage of the UI from responder's failure to ask about 1D (combined with his apparent presumption that responder didn't know the meaning of 1D) to pass 1H (presumably some number(s) of spades would have been LA(s)). If not, the UI may have been there, but there is no reason to think that he was aware of it (he obviously has no LA of bidding spades if he thought that 1D and 1H were both natural), much less used it; he has not committed an infraction, and is entitled to keep whatever score he may have earned by being lucky. II is rather more suspicious-looking on its face. Here dealer's failure to alert 2S, combined with his subsequent alert of 3S, strongly suggests that it was responder's question that led him to realize that not only 3S, but 2S as well, were "bid[s] in opponents' suit". His 3NT bid should not be allowed (assuming it damaged the NOS) if, say, pass or 4S are found to be LAs given the presumption that 2S and 3S were natural. Indeed, the question, coming after the non-alert of 2S and prior to the subsequent 3S, suggests that responder may have asked solely for the purpose of insuring that opener realized that he was bidding a suit which had been shown by the 2H call. If so, his deliberate attempt to pass that information is a more grievous offence than his partner's taking advantage of it. Had the question come before the 2S bid, it would be unlikely to be cause for an adjustment. This suggests an interesting and previously unremarked asymmetry in how we deal with this kind of UI. We appear to assume that players are expected to presume that their partners are aware of the meanings of their opponents' calls. Asking or not asking a question can reveal that one either does or does not understand the opponents' auction up to that point, both of which are UI, but we are (and, IMO, probably should be) far more inclined to find that the UI was "taken advantage of" in the latter case than in the former. Anent the "Asking about an alert" thread, however, this may be a parochial ACBL viewpoint, conditioned by the expectation that opponents will ask about an alerted call whenever they don't already know what it means. 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 Jun 1 02:12:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VG91d19484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:09:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.northrock.bm (mx.northrock.bm [209.27.140.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VG8tt19480 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:08:55 +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 f4VG7qn27309 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 13:07:53 -0300 (ADT) User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108 Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:09:29 -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. > > 1. When the bidding returns to North, s/he knows that E/W have a heart preempt & probably not more that 20 HCP between them. If the 2D opener had the big hand other options would could have been exploited. South, therefore probably has at least 12 HCP and a somewhat balanced hand. Armed with this information, I personally would bid 3S with North's holding. Others might well disagree but it feels right to me. IMO, there may be UI here but I have nothing to indicate that it is being used by North. Of course, if this occurs at a large event, the opinion of expert players can be obtained by the TD to determine whether North has a reopening bid. 2. Although it is not a limiting factor, I do find it strange that E/W did not summon the TD immediately after the auction ended to express concerns. This smacks somewhat of not liking your result and calling the TD afterwards to get help. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 02:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VGkVd19516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:46:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VGkPt19512 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:46:26 +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 f4VGkXa06774 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 09:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000d01c0e9f1$0c403ae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" 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> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:45:00 -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: "Eric Landau" > 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 says it better than I could. I said "Always ask," but it should be "Always ask if you don't understand." My wife Alice taught me a good procedure. Whenever there is an Alert, she looks at the opposing cc (often having to ask for it, despite regulations that say it should be on the table), and if that doesn't provide the answer she requests an explanation. Every time. This policy reduces the amount of UI opponents must create (an Alert explanation is UI to partner) and eliminates our own UI. It is common for the Alerter's partner to "Announce" the meaning, trying to be helpful. If we wanted that, we would not consult their cc. She also does this for unAlerted skip bids, looking to see, for instance, whether preempts and weak two bids are sound, light, or very light. Every time. With a mandated 10-second wait, there's plenty of time to do this. She adopted this procedure on her own. It's a good one that everyone should follow. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 02:50:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VGlMw19522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VGlFt19518 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:47:16 +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 MAA09763 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:54:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105311654.MAA09763@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Reply-To: michael@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531103917.00b0bd50@127.0.0.1> 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> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531103917.00b0bd50@127.0.0.1> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:54:40 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 31 May 2001 at 10:47, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:04 AM 5/31/01, Konrad wrote: > >>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?? > >I believe so. While deciding just what's "official" in the ACBL is a >non-trivial problem, Mr. Cohen's advice does reflect what has been >published in the ACBL Bulletin without any statement to the effect that >it is an author's opinion rather than official guidance. That makes it >"official" as far as 99.9% of ACBL members are concerned, regardless of >whether or not the ACBL may later acknowledge it as "officially >official". In real life, I'm quite certain that Konrad's #1 has been >so acknowledged; I'm less certain about #2, but believe it has. > Well, #2 is specifically written in the Alert Procedure, which had better be official :-) "When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME." I've seen #1 - but I don't know whether it's in any "official" documents in the ACBL. 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 Jun 1 03:11:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VH8QU19556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:08:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VH8Jt19552 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:08:20 +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 NAA10115 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 13:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105311715.NAA10115@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: <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: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:15:41 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 30 May 2001 at 15:43, David Stevenson wrote: >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? > Playing in the club, people ask about my Alerts pretty much all the time - but that that's because I play a fair amount more science than most in the club, and also occasionally come in with a weird system (so much so that I've been asked, with a resigned tone, "So what system are you playing today?") But most people tend only to ask about Alerts that they don't remember from previous playings against that pair. And that doesn't count the people who Announce 1C "Could be short" and 2D "Flannery"... In tournaments, and I try to play in separate Flight A whenever it's available, "common" Alerts tend to be ignored (Support Doubles, 2NT Lebensohl, 4SF, and such like) as do Alerts that are "one of a family of similar calls" (the prime example being 2NT after a weak 2. It's some sort of ask, usually showing strength; but what specific ask isn't usually terribly relevant until the end of the auction). Also, After 1C!-1D!; 1H!-1S!; 2NT! isn't likely to be asked about until after the auction. However, anything that doesn't get a "oh, yeah, I know what that means" is likely to be asked about immediately, especially in competitive auctions or the first three calls by a side. And when I come in with an unusual system, *everything* gets asked about, pretty much without fail. My experience only, and doesn't include NABCs. 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 Jun 1 03:25:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VHMIu19595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:22:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f4VHM5t19591 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:22:10 +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 155W8C-0004z8-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 17:21:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:19:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sympathetic weighting References: <001c01c0e857$cf7194a0$32437bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001c01c0e857$cf7194a0$32437bd5@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001c01c0e857$cf7194a0$32437bd5@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott================================= > "Our experience is composed rather of >illusions lost than of wisdom acquired." > [Joseph Roux] >+ = + - + - + - + - + - + >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >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 ~ +=+ This could be quite tough, as it would imply one would want to check the scores. This would be inherently unfair for a ruling made in the first round compared with one made in the last. I do think however that we, as TD's should endeavour to take all aspects of the ruling into account - eg is it a "wild" or is it a "boring" hand cheers john > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Jun 1 03:53:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VHnpe19613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:49:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VHnjt19609 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:49:46 +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 f4VHnsa20225 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 10:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002501c0e9f9$e430b620$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" 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> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531103917.00b0bd50@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 10:48:13 -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: "Eric Landau" > At 09:04 AM 5/31/01, Konrad wrote: > > >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?? > > I believe so. While deciding just what's "official" in the ACBL is a > non-trivial problem, Mr. Cohen's advice does reflect what has been > published in the ACBL Bulletin without any statement to the effect that > it is an author's opinion rather than official guidance. That makes it > "official" as far as 99.9% of ACBL members are concerned, regardless of > whether or not the ACBL may later acknowledge it as "officially > official". In real life, I'm quite certain that Konrad's #1 has been > so acknowledged; I'm less certain about #2, but believe it has. > The Alert Procedure was the product of a great deal of careful thinking and long debate, regardless of what people think of it. The BoD did not want to require Alerts that they felt were unnecessary. Exempting calls from the Alert requirement reduces the amount of UI produced by explanations, and unnecessary Alerts compromise this goal. When Alerts first came out in ACBL-land, opponents had the right to ask that no Alerts be given. Many of us exercised that right, because we felt that Alerts were helping the opponents more than us. While this fear seems to have died out, there is still something to it. Alerting unnecesarily is not a good thing, and does not have official sanction. Nevertheless, Alerting "when in doubt" is probably good advice. Better advice is to learn the ACBL Alert Procedure, which I have boiled down to one WordPerfect page. See David Stevenson's excellent website: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/acbl_alt.htm It amazes me that players will learn many complicated conventions, whose documentation takes up hundreds of pages, and yet say they are unable to learn a one-page compilation of the Alert regulations. It's pure laziness. The same goes for the Laws, a very small book. 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 Jun 1 04:20:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VIHSV19637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:17:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VIHNt19633 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:17:23 +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 f4VIHVa25624 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 11:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004b01c0e9fd$bf044660$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: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:15:15 -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? > > 1. When the bidding returns to North, s/he knows that E/W have a heart > preempt & probably not more that 20 HCP between them. If the 2D opener had > the big hand other options would could have been exploited. South, therefore > probably has at least 12 HCP and a somewhat balanced hand. Armed with this > information, I personally would bid 3S with North's holding. Others might > well disagree but it feels right to me. IMO, there may be UI here but I have > nothing to indicate that it is being used by North. Of course, if this > occurs at a large event, the opinion of expert players can be obtained by > the TD to determine whether North has a reopening bid. The issue is whether the question demonstrably suggests action by North. We can't answer that without more information. If it doesn't, there is no restriction on North's bidding. If it does, it is not enough that North have a good 3S bid--there must be no logical alternative. > > 2. Although it is not a limiting factor, I do find it strange that E/W did > not summon the TD immediately after the auction ended to express concerns. In this case the time to summon the Director is when play is over, not "when the auction ended." See the footnote to L16A2. The sight of dummy does not reveal any infraction (arguable, but let's grant that), since declarer could have a hand that has no LA to the 3S bid. > This smacks somewhat of not liking your result and calling the TD afterwards > to get help. So what? That is exactly what L16A2 requires. Calling the TD before the time specified by the footnote is not only wrong, but is a waste of everyone's time if it turns out that there clearly was no damage (e.g., 4S goes down 1). Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 04:28:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VIPBE19650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:25:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VIP4t19646 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:25:05 +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 NAA28706 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 13:24:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010531132143.007b1100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:21:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faulty directing) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> References: <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@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 07:59 AM 5/29/2001 -0400, 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. This doesn't follow. It is quite possible that 'careless _to the point of stupidity_' is equivalent to irrational, while ordinary carelessness is 'normal'. Just as a following a line that is so wildly _inferior_ that even the worst bridge player can see in a second that it won't work is not 'inferior' for claims purposes, it is irrational. At some point careless and inferior become irrational, while still being careless and inferior. >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 Jun 1 05:02:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VIwYg21550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:58:34 +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.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VIwRt21508 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 04:58:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-027.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.219]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA85859 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 19:57:24 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 31 May 2001 19:58:00 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0EA0B.FEEC1B00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:57:59 +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 > "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? Additional information: 1. South always asks about alerted calls against this pair but to quote Grattan "Such is the fallibility of man (and woman) that I doubt anyone's capacity to act with a consistency that will obviate UI; for this reason I think the honest line is to accept that when you ask it will create the UI, and trust partner." 2. South's Pass was non-forcing. A take-out double of Hearts was available. 3. North's thought processes where along the lines of Jack Rhind: "When the bidding returns to North, s/he knows that E/W have a heart preempt & probably not more that 20 HCP between them. If the 2D opener had the big hand other options would could have been exploited. South, therefore probably has at least 12 HCP and a somewhat balanced hand. Armed with this information, I personally would bid 3S with North's holding." Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 05:17:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VJEtR25421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 05:14:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f21.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VJEot25417 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 05:14:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 31 May 2001 12:13:49 -0700 Received: from 172.137.52.193 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2001 19:13:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.137.52.193] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faulty directing) Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:13:49 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2001 19:13:49.0453 (UTC) FILETIME=[D28C73D0:01C0EA05] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Grant Sterling This doesn't follow. It is quite possible that 'careless _to >the point of stupidity_' is equivalent to irrational, while ordinary >carelessness is 'normal'. Just as a following a line that is so wildly >_inferior_ that even the worst bridge player can see in a second that it >won't work is not 'inferior' for claims purposes, it is irrational. At >some point careless and inferior become irrational, while still being >careless and inferior. Agreed. It might help to read the footnote as "careless or inferior..., but not simultaneously irrational." I believe it's an equivalent statement. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 06:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKFfE29002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKFJt28975 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:20 +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 155Ypo-000KId-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:14:21 +0000 Message-ID: <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:11:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200105301639.JAA25334@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 > >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. I feel that you should be judging against the norm. I have asked elsewhere in this thread about whether people ask about alerts in the ACBL. If 90% of the time people ask, then asking transmits very little usable UI. When I alert, my opponents ask the meaning of the call at the time less than 50% of the time, and against all but the most careful, I know they have not got a very poor hand once they ask. People keep saying on this list that it should not happen, but it does. The EBU's regulation, which many have criticised, may or may not be right, but it is an attempt to control a situation as it exists, not as it ought to but does not exist. There has also been a comment here about questions after an unexpected alert: that is *not* the main problem: surely the main problem is questions after an expected alert? Our alerting policy is simpler than the ACBL's, and thus less efficient and easier to memorise. Plusses and minusses. For example, we alert conventions, because that is simple. Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] What is that? I tell you that a club holding is at least a 70% possibility after that question here. No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we have to accept what happens, not what should happen. -- 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 Jun 1 06:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKFdL29000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKFJt28976 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:20 +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 155Ypo-000KIh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:14:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:23:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200105301431.f4UEVIg12746@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200105301431.f4UEVIg12746@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 >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" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ahem!] >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." The fact that Tony has written this does not mean it has any truth in it whatever. Different situations are to be treated in different ways, and no sport ever does away with local regulations completely. Quite frankly, Tony is talking utter bilge. Suppose you play in Mostrova, where smoking is considered acceptable throughout the country, in the home, in the workplace, wherever. In bridge events, naturally, you may smoke, why not, everyone does. But Tony would argue they have not taken the international view in their smoking regulation. >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) So, the whole case had **nothing whatever to do with the regulation.** If the chosen call was routine, then there were no 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 Fri Jun 1 06:18:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKFp629005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKFMt28983 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:23 +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 155Yps-000KId-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:25:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul 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 Roger Pewick writes >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 the Law book? -- 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 Jun 1 06:18:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKFeR29001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKFJt28977 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:20 +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 155Ypo-000KIg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:14:23 +0000 Message-ID: <4Y7wGQAGWjF7EwLW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:13:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200105301708.SAA23158@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200105301708.SAA23158@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 >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? Oh good. I can ask with better hearts than spades, and this is AI to partner. No, Robin, I am not stupid enough to suppose this is what you meant. But this is what your suggested Law says. -- 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 Jun 1 06:18:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKFgM29003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKFJt28978 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:20 +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 155Ypo-000KIb-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:14:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:01:10 +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$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003801c0e939$ea149900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003801c0e939$ea149900$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 >> >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. I do not look up dictionaries: I just use words. If you really do not understand Marv, I shall explain, and probably get shouted at again by Herman for replying to you. "To waive a penalty" can mean two things: [1] A technical meaning: you define "waive" according to the Laws, you define "penalty" according to the Laws. Only when it is entirely in accordance with the Laws do you call it "To waive a penalty". [2] A practical meaning: if everyone knows what "To waive a penalty" means then you can use the term even if it does nto follow the Laws exactly. To refuse to allow [2] and insist on [1] is a semantic argument, and not helpful. If you can get a penalty from an insufficient bid, but just bid over it, everyone in the world knows you have waived the penalty, despite L10A. -- 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 Jun 1 06:18:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKFnT29004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKFJt28979 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:15:20 +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 155Ypo-000KIW-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 20:14:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:55:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double out of turn References: <200105301654.JAA25671@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200105301654.JAA25671@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> Adam Beneschan writes >> >> >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. So, we cover that in the revoke Laws. >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. True. But you should at least consider the reverse: it is difficult to make a takeout double when partner is barred. If it is obvious you would want to make a penalty double then Law 23 applies: if it is not it really is rub-of-the-green. [s] >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. That is because it is not that easy to decide on a judgement Law, especially one that is not common. And that applies *just as much* to your new proposed solution. In fact, the case I produced is a good example of L23 in action, and why we do not need anything more. We do need people here to be aware it is a good example, admittedly. -- 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 Jun 1 06:53:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VKoWP29059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:50:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VKoOt29055 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 06:50:25 +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 f4VKnRG04760 for ; Thu, 31 May 2001 16:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@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 16:49:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faulty directing) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010531132143.007b1100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@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 02:21 PM 5/31/01, Grant wrote: >At 07:59 AM 5/29/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >"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. > > This doesn't follow. It is quite possible that 'careless _to >the point of stupidity_' is equivalent to irrational, while ordinary >carelessness is 'normal'. Just as a following a line that is so wildly >_inferior_ that even the worst bridge player can see in a second that it >won't work is not 'inferior' for claims purposes, it is irrational. At >some point careless and inferior become irrational, while still being >careless and inferior. Point taken. I concede that there is such a thing as "careless to the point of irrationality", and that that implies "irrational". I do not, however, concede that "stupid" implies "irrational" -- there are people whom I consider rather stupid but quite rational, and see no contradiction in that -- nor, consequently, that "careless to the point of stupidity" implies "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 Fri Jun 1 07:34:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VLV4J11781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:31:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VLUvt11743 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:30:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VEfWs07484 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 31 May 2001 14:41:32 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: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:07:17 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01053114413200.07330@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 May 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > There has also been a comment here about questions after an unexpected > alert: that is *not* the main problem: surely the main problem is > questions after an expected alert? Our alerting policy is simpler than > the ACBL's, and thus less efficient and easier to memorise. Plusses and > minusses. For example, we alert conventions, because that is simple. > Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] What is that? I tell > you that a club holding is at least a 70% possibility after that > question here. No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we have > to accept what happens, not what should happen. At the same time, we need to avoid creating UI traps. A common agreement in this situation is that if 4C shows short clubs, the double requests a diamond lead, while if 4C says nothing about clubs (Swiss, for example), the double requests a club lead. Players playing this agreement must either determine beforehand whether the opponents are playing Swiss or splinters, or else risk UI problems. If fourth hand wants a diamond lead, asks, and finds out that the bid is Swiss, he must either bid 4D (and probably go for a number) to get his diamond lead, or pass knowing that partner will now have to lead a heart if that is a LA. This problem can occur whenever anyone plays a convention which is alertable but which is not the expected meaning of the alert. The ACBL's Announcements are one attempt to deal with some cases; without announcements, a player with five good hearts hearing 1NT-(P)-2D! could not ask without creating UI (probably hearing that 2H was a transfer and then passing), and would thus miss the chance to come in with 2H when 2D was actually forcing Stayman. One solution is to make it possible to unobtrusively look at the opponents' CC. This only works if the regulations that the CC be available to the opponents are enforced (as they are in the EBU but not in the ACBL) *and* the information is available on the CC. In a case such as Swiss/Splinter, this is not a problem on a properly-completed CC, but there are many other situations in which the information is not available. What do you do if LHO opens 2D (which you know is Flannery, having read the CC before the round), and RHO bids 3C alerted? -- 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 Jun 1 07:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VLd6n14587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:39:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VLcxt14549 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:39:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta7l.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.245]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07537; Thu, 31 May 2001 17:37:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <060301c0ea1a$1966f140$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:38:55 -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 Stevenson writes: > > I feel that you should be judging against the norm. I have asked > elsewhere in this thread about whether people ask about alerts in the > ACBL. If 90% of the time people ask, then asking transmits very little > usable UI. When I alert, my opponents ask the meaning of the call at > the time less than 50% of the time, and against all but the most > careful, I know they have not got a very poor hand once they ask. Of course: the EBU requires this to be the case, since you must have a "need to know" to ask, do you not? If I played in an EBU event, I would be required, though it would feel wrong, to remain in the dark and pass with a very poor hand. (I assume by "ask", you mean "ask or in some other way come to understand", since getting the answer from the CC or from experience is at least as UI-safe as asking to find out the meaning of an alert.) > > People keep saying on this list that it should not happen, but it > does. The EBU's regulation, which many have criticised, may or may not > be right, but it is an attempt to control a situation as it exists, not > as it ought to but does not exist. The EBU's regulation creates, or at least exacerbates, the situation, no? Think like an economist for a moment---in terms of incentives. What regulation creates the most incentive for creating usable UI? None more than EBU's. I agree that 90% is good and 50% is bad, but it seems clear that EBU regulations help keep the number you experience down around 50%. (I would have expected it to be even lower, but I guess it depends on what is alerted. Are players really lectured to when they ask with a bad hand?) > > There has also been a comment here about questions after an unexpected > alert: that is *not* the main problem: surely the main problem is > questions after an expected alert? Our alerting policy is simpler than > the ACBL's, and thus less efficient and easier to memorise. Plusses and > minusses. For example, we alert conventions, because that is simple. Yes, I like it. Add a few specific (but optional) announcements, such as "Stayman", "Negative", "Transfer", and "Forcing", and it might be about the best possible. > Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] What is that? I tell > you that a club holding is at least a 70% possibility after that > question here. No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we have > to accept what happens, not what should happen. > But at least 70% of those with a need to know about 4C on this auction will have clubs, so it is mostly the EBU regulation's fault that this happens where you play. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 08:23:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VMKPm19470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:20:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f4VMKJt19466 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:20:19 +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 IAA09816; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:24:50 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 08:10:32 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 To: "cyaxares::.gov.au":"lineone.net:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:17:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/06/2001 08:14:53 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >"In nature there are neither rewards nor >punishments - there are consequences." > (Robert Green Ingersoll) > + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >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 ~ +=+ To be more specific, L90B7 implies that minor errors in procedure, such as failing to count one's cards, should *not* be subject to a PP *unless* such an error requires the TD to consequently (not merely subsequently) award an adjusted score. 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 Jun 1 09:05:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VN1Ll24215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:01:21 +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 f4VN1Gt24211 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:01:16 +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 JAA12865 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:05:55 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 08:51:36 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:58:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/06/2001 08:55:57 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: [big snip] >One solution is to make it possible to unobtrusively look at the >opponents' CC. This only works if the regulations that the CC be >available to the opponents are enforced (as they are in the EBU but not >in the ACBL) *and* the information is available on the CC. In a case >such as Swiss/Splinter, this is not a problem on a properly-completed >CC, but there are many other situations in which the information is not >available. What do you do if LHO opens 2D (which you know is Flannery, >having read the CC before the round), and RHO bids 3C alerted? This is merely an ACBL problem, because of their stupid tradition of combining convention cards with score cards. The inside of the effectively designed ABF convention card contains detailed information (including meanings of each initial response to each opening bid) about the system employed. 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 Jun 1 09:26:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VNNSw24271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VNNIt24264 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4VNMKG12408 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:22:20 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert 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: <000601c0e9e5$fe1d75a0$af3a7bd5@pacific> Grattan wrote: > Such is the fallibility of man (and woman) > that I doubt anyone's capacity to act with a > consistency that will obviate UI; for this reason > I think the honest line is to accept that when you > ask it will create the UI, and trust partner. +=+ We need to be careful here, surely there must be a balance between protecting the alerters from UI abuse and supporting the principle of full disclosure (which was the original purpose of alerts). If one assumes that asking creates UI then not asking also creates UI. This is likely to disadvantage the opponents of non-natural systems in a way that seems against the spirit of the game. I prefer something like "A simple request for explanation after an alerted call (or a call that has more than one common non-alertable meaning) will seldom be considered to convey any information about the askers hand. TDs have considerable discretion to adjust if they feel in any way that this privilege is being abused*." *A primary example of abuse is an enquiry about a call whose meaning should have been discovered prior to the auction or could easily be ascertained by a cursory inspection of the CC" I think such guidelines would sit better with a culture of "try to ask every time you don't know". The Wise-Man - sorry Peter got me confused:-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 09:26:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f4VNNSf24272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f4VNNIt24263 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f4VNMJ912381 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:22:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 00:22 +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: > In fact, the case I produced is a good > example of L23 in action, and why we do not need anything more. We do > need people here to be aware it is a good example, admittedly. Just so we understand is it a good example because: a) Barring partner increases the net score expectation on the hand . b) Barring partner decreases the net score expectation and this example shows why L23 should not lead to adjustment in this case. (in relation to the above has anyone actually tried a simulation?) c) Despite the fact that barring partner decreases the net score expectation the calibre of the player concerned is such that they are likely to believe the opposite and so L23 should lead to adjustment. (not sure about this but it definitely fits with the "would a cheat deliberately try a similar ploy" reasoning). d) because regardless of the actual hand we appear close to consensus that "likely" in L23 can be taken as "will lead to a better score on about 40% or more of possible hands/appears likely to increase the net score expectation". FWIW I vote it a good example for d). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 14:35:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f514WIU04769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:32:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f514WDt04765 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:32:13 +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 OAA26349 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:36:50 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 14:22:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:29:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/06/2001 02:26:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: [snip] >>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. [snip] The inconsistency of the current method of awarding PPs is also criticised on page 172 of *Bridge, Zia and me* by Michael Rosenberg: >When something 'goes wrong' at the table, but there >is clearly no damage, then the Director is usually >not called, and a procedural penalty is not even at >issue. However, when there *might* have been >damage from a similar infraction, and the Director >*is* called, the case may or may not go to >Committee. Those pairs against whom no Director >was called receive an unfair advantage. And even >those cases which *do* go to committee are not >handled uniformly. In fact, Committees have >tended to assess procedural penalties almost randomly. Rosenberg is a hobbit, who wishes to melt L90 in the nearest Crack of Doom. He correctly argues that PPs are not the appropriate way to punish unethical behaviour, recommending disciplinary action (for example, suspension) instead. Rosenberg also asserts that inadvertent errors should not be punished by PPs. But I both agree and disagree with Hirsch Davis and Michael Rosenberg. My pragmatic philosophy on L90 is that disruptive carelessness by a player (for example, fouling a board) - despite inadvertently occurring - is psychologically less likely to *recur*, if the TD applies an appropriate PP. However, this desirable psychological effect will only happen if the TD's victim hit with a PP for an irregularity perceives it as *a fair cop*. For example: 1. Dozy partnership moves to wrong table; 2. Movement collapses; 3. TD imposes a PP; 4. Dozy partnership accepts that Truth and Justice have prevailed, and will also be more careful when moving to a new table in future. On the other hand, it seems that Hirsch Davis's love of consistency would result in this scenario: 1. Dozy partnership moves to wrong table; 2. TD notices in time, movement unaffected; 3. TD imposes a PP; 4. Dozy partnership outraged at unjust penalty given that irregularity was not established; 5. Out of pique, partnership even more dozy; 6. Partnership never plays at that club 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 Fri Jun 1 17:00:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f516ute07211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:56:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f516ujt07203 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-53-207.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.53.207]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f516tdH08411 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:55:39 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002101c0ea67$edf8a3c0$cf357bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:22:57 +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: Friday, June 01, 2001 5:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 ----------------- > However, this desirable psychological effect will only > happen if the TD's victim hit with a PP for an > irregularity perceives it as *a fair cop*. For > example: > > 1. Dozy partnership moves to wrong table; > 2. Movement collapses; > 3. TD imposes a PP; > 4. Dozy partnership accepts that Truth and Justice > have prevailed, and will also be more careful > when moving to a new table in future. > > On the other hand, it seems that Hirsch Davis's love of > consistency would result in this scenario: > > 1. Dozy partnership moves to wrong table; > 2. TD notices in time, movement unaffected; > 3. TD imposes a PP; > 4. Dozy partnership outraged at unjust penalty > given that irregularity was not established; > 5. Out of pique, partnership even more dozy; > 6. Partnership never plays at that club again. > +=+ I am looking for a gentle synonym for 'balderdash'. What we have here is nothing to do with the law as such - it is an example of a Director who fails to use wisely the discretion given him in the laws. The rigour with which penalties are imposed is expected to vary according to the level of play and what is expected of the players, matters in which the Director will have the guidance of the SO. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 17:00:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f516vO207218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:57:24 +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 f516vHt07214 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:57:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-53-207.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.53.207]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f516tiH08482; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:55:44 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002301c0ea67$f10bfe40$cf357bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jerry Fusselman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <060301c0ea1a$1966f140$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:51:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > David Stevenson writes: > > > Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] > > What is that? I tell you that a club holding is at > > least a 70% possibility after that question here. > > No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we > > have to accept what happens, not what should > >happen. > > > > But at least 70% of those with a need to know > about 4C on this auction will have clubs, so it is > mostly the EBU regulation's fault that this > happens where you play. > +=+ I believe that players should have the right not to ask about an alerted call where the explanation given in reply appears more likely on balance to assist the alerting side than to assist the questioner. ~ 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 Jun 1 17:00:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f516uuP07212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:56:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f516ult07204 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:56:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-53-207.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.53.207]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f516tfH08425 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:55:41 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002201c0ea67$eefc0a00$cf357bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:36:46 +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: cyaxares::.gov.au : lineone.net:> <@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >"In nature there are neither rewards nor > >punishments - there are consequences." > > (Robert Green Ingersoll) > > + + + + > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >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 ~ +=+ > > To be more specific, L90B7 implies that minor errors > in procedure, such as failing to count one's cards, > should *not* be subject to a PP *unless* such an > error requires the TD to consequently (not merely > subsequently) award an adjusted score. > +=+ Yes. However the law leaves discretion in the matter to the Director (who may have guidance from the regulating authority). The reference to violation of procedure is in the general authority given, not in the examples in B where the words 'but are not limited to' are to be noted. ~ 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 Jun 1 17:05:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5172VT07246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5172Pt07242 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:02:25 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA22131; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:01:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jun 01 09:00:37 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 <01K48WG20SRA0078X9@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:00:45 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 08:59:38 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:00:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul To: "'Roger Pewick'" , blml Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B871@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > A 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. I don't understand the facts regarding tricks won and lost, but they don't matter. Did you read 64A1? What do you have to explain then? I only can find one argument, which is that he thinks that the revoke trick is the one in which the revoke becomes apparent. Well, you should be able to clarify that. > > 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. He won the trick in which he revoked, that is what 64A1 tells. I am beginning to worry about the explanation you gave. But there is always the possibility to blame the laws as they are written. ton 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 17:23:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f517KxO07265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:20:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f517Kqt07261 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qta7q.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.168.250]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA13906; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 03:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <083a01c0ea6b$606e1040$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <060301c0ea1a$1966f140$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> <002301c0ea67$f10bfe40$cf357bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:20:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes: > > Grattan Endicott "Most men make little use of their speech > other than to give evidence against their > own understanding." > - 1st Marquis of Halifax. > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jerry Fusselman > To: David Stevenson ; > > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:38 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > > > David Stevenson writes: > > > > > Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] > > > What is that? I tell you that a club holding is at > > > least a 70% possibility after that question here. > > > No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we > > > have to accept what happens, not what should > > >happen. > > > > > > > But at least 70% of those with a need to know > > about 4C on this auction will have clubs, so it is > > mostly the EBU regulation's fault that this > > happens where you play. > > > +=+ I believe that players should have the right > not to ask about an alerted call where the > explanation given in reply appears more likely > on balance to assist the alerting side than to > assist the questioner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Drat, I was hoping to escape the 1st Marquis of Halifax's stern reminder. Yeah, I admit I believe that too, if I understand you correctly. No director could provide100% protection in such circumstances. But I am unclear why your statement comes here, below this one paragraph of mine. I was referring to the EBU regulation which, as I understand it, requires a definite need to know as a prerequisite to asking the meaning of an alerted call. Only that one regulation. If that regulation was removed, it would not affect the right to not ask, would it? Sorry if I was unclear. Have I just been trapped into some contradiction? Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 17:51:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f517m8i07291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:48:08 +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 f517m1t07287 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:48:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA03401; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 09:47:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jun 01 09:46:15 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 <01K48Y1872900079DC@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:46:04 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:44:56 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:46:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Jerry Fusselman , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@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 > > Grattan Endicott "Most men make little use of their speech > other than to give evidence against their > own understanding." > - 1st Marquis of Halifax. > > > David Stevenson writes: > > > > > Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] > > > What is that? I tell you that a club holding is at > > > least a 70% possibility after that question here. > > > No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we > > > have to accept what happens, not what should > > >happen. After 4C they will have clubs anyway. So a clubholding is at least a 40% possibility after the 4C bid here. I don't like the idea to declare this question as unauthorized information for partner, if that is what some of us want to say. The question is legal and the answer is authorized information also. There are some statements given previously about this problem. I like the approach in which a remarkable action by partner now can be taken care of. Kind of a 25% rule: if partner now does something which is not a logical alternative it should not be allowed. But this approach might be too lenient, it is a difficult situation. And I hope that those telling the bridge world that L 20F1 deals with it by demanding to start asking about the 1S bid are convinced that to be nonsense. May be we should start to introduce automatic explanation by partner in the first 2 rounds of bidding, in cases of non natural calls. This is not law, but regulation. Why don't we start with some experiments, or is it done somewhere already (ACBL)? > > > > But at least 70% of those with a need to know > > about 4C on this auction will have clubs, so it is > > mostly the EBU regulation's fault that this > > happens where you play. > > > +=+ I believe that players should have the right > not to ask about an alerted call where the > explanation given in reply appears more likely > on balance to assist the alerting side than to > assist the questioner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ They have that right, isn't it? Is this conversation going to support you or me with regard to your oneliner today? Normally this will not happen, the laws take care for that possibility. 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 Jun 1 20:21:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51AHn807575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:17:49 +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-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 f51AHet07519 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:17:40 +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 155lyw-00080B-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:16:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:52:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 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 >Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> 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 ~ +=+ > >To be more specific, L90B7 implies that minor errors >in procedure, such as failing to count one's cards, >should *not* be subject to a PP *unless* such an >error requires the TD to consequently (not merely >subsequently) award an adjusted score. L90B7 is merely an example. The meat of the Law is in L90A, which includes the words "violates correct procedure". It is thus completely legal to give a PP for violating correct procedure, whatever happens. TDs are expected to use commonsense, and expected to be trained to do so, and to apply judgement. Certainly if South moves a board to the next table, a PP for not leaving North to do it per L8A2 would be very poor directing. But that does not mean that there is no such situation, and to limit the TDs unnecessarily seems unfortunate. Fortunately L90A does not limit them very much. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 20:21:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51AHtp07605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:17:55 +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 f51AHct07512 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:17:41 +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 155lyw-0002N2-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:16:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 02:45:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <060301c0ea1a$1966f140$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <060301c0ea1a$1966f140$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >David Stevenson writes: >> People keep saying on this list that it should not happen, but it >> does. The EBU's regulation, which many have criticised, may or may not >> be right, but it is an attempt to control a situation as it exists, not >> as it ought to but does not exist. > >The EBU's regulation creates, or at least exacerbates, the situation, no? >Think like an economist for a moment---in terms of incentives. What >regulation creates the most incentive for creating usable UI? None more >than EBU's. I agree that 90% is good and 50% is bad, but it seems clear >that EBU regulations help keep the number you experience down around 50%. >(I would have expected it to be even lower, but I guess it depends on what >is alerted. Are players really lectured to when they ask with a bad hand?) I have played just a little bridge under EBU alerting regulations, and people do not generally have any feeling for asking in the way that seems expected in the ACBL. OK, let us think incentives for a moment. The average player in a club used to ask only when they had a holding. 1C "Is that natural?" Partner leads a club. Now, what you say is that we do not want our regulation. Fine, and everyone goes back to asking about 1C openings to show clubs. What actually happened when the regulation was introduced and promulgated was that the ethical players were not affected, but amongst the majority whose ethics are doubtful because of lack of understanding or something a rule slowly permeated. As a result the amount of meaningful questions reduced. What would happen if we took up your regulation? The number of questions would increase, but not at the right time. We would go back to getting leads against 3NT from C xx when Stayman was asked about, and so on. Of course, you can say, we could solve that with lots of rulings. But we are not talking Flight A here: we are talking club bridge, and lesser county bridge: this is where regulations of this sort are needed to help with ethics. We do not want rulings: we want something to try to persuade people not to do too many unethical things. Perhaps our regulation is wrong, but it is not obviosuly so: when it was introduced it reduced an abuse quite considerably. The EBU's regulation did not create the situation - the situation was there. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 1 21:12:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51B9la10669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:09:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f51B9Kt10665 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 972A42A5516; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:08:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id CD3822A57E9 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:08:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 13035 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2001 11:08:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 1 Jun 2001 11:08:13 -0000 Message-ID: <3B177735.5000400@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:06:29 +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: [BLML] Delibarately losing a match Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 8a33cacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thinking out of the 'box' by Kees Tammens Here's a scenario: You're playing the last board of the qualification for the final of a national championship, with sixteen pairs qualifying. You reach an ice-cold 6H. At that moment the rankings are published. You are in 17th place. You can see that if your make your 6H contract you will stay in 17th place but if you go down this will have the effect that you climb into 15th place and earn yourself a berth in the final! "Peculiar hand" the Hideous Hog would remark. What would you do? What would any competitive bridge player do in this strange situation? This story is a summarization of the situation that arose in the fourth heat of the qualification of the IngBank tournament. Qualification for the ingBank takes place in four weekend-long heats (two days of 45 boards each). Pairs are awarded a certain number of qualifying points (circuitpoints) for each heat. A pair's best three results are taken, and the top 16 qualify for the ingBank Final. My partner, Pieter Bas Wintermans, and I were in 8th place coming into the last of the four heats. We were playing miserably and with 20 boards to go we were 33rd of 34 pairs. There was realistically no way to win the 70 imps we needed to improve on our overall score so we would have to be satisfied with the total of the previous three heats. This was the key - we knew what our final score would be before playing the last 20 boards - and it appeared that we were dropping out of the top sixteen. There was still a way to reach our goal, however. If we would arrange things so that one of the pairs who had already qualified for the final actually reached first or second place in the fourth heat they would snatch all those desirable circuitpoints from the hands of our nearer rivals thus ensuring our spot in the top 16 overall. This implied that that we would have to give away points on purpose! Was that allowed? Before taking this action we went to the tournament directors and discussed the plan. What was their opinion on this unusual situation? They looked into the rules and found absolutely nothing that would forbid my plan. In fact they were supportive of us taking this action. So we went for a couple of redoubled undertricks and doubled them in an easy 3NT making with two overtricks and made a very phantom save. Our plan was successful. The pair that won all these points placed first and we finished the four heats in 15th place qualifying for the ingBank final. Not so! The next day the organisers of IngBank suspended us on basis of rule 74A2 and also scratched all our scores from the fourth heat. We appealed with the Dutch Bridge Federation and so did the tournament director. The committee lifted the suspension. It was found the organisers had no right to put up such a suspension and all the scores were reinstated. Experts on the law stated that 74A2 had nothing to do with bridge tactics or bridge strategy and could never be taken into account for this situation. They again confirmed that there was no bridge law that prevented the action we had taken. Of course all this created a lot of discussion and emotions often clouded the logic of the matter. Deliberately losing a match to get an easier opponent in the next round is common and accepted as sensible in other sports, but at bridge losing points to your own advantage was something that was difficult and hard to accept by some players. In the end I am glad that I persisted in taking this action. I have played competitieve bridge for more than 30 years and many times got the impression that organisers of tournament are careless with the rules and regulations of their events. As well some of the laws of bridge deserve a thorough examination. Above all, my love for this card game is overwhelming. I have spent many years working hard to stiumulate and promote the game as a serious competitive sport. ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------------- Cierpisz z powodu poczty? Zmien ja na bezproblemowa! http://poczta.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 Jun 1 23:34:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51DV0f11595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:31:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51DUrt11591 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:30:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA28036; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:29:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA11952; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:29:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010601153350.00861740@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:33:50 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Roger Pewick'" , blml From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B871@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:00 1/06/01 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Did you read 64A1? What do you have to explain then? I only can find one >argument, which is that he thinks that the revoke trick is the one in which >the revoke becomes apparent. Well, you should be able to clarify that. You see, Ton, the poor guy doesn't understand why the correction, in tricks, should be higher than the difference the revoke genuinely created. He heard that the Laws were concerned with equity, and doesn't feel the present case is equitable to him; In such a case, you're better not to answer 'omdat het zo in het boek staat'. To give the impression of lawyering would be bad indeed. To explain that the Laws can't foresee everything, that usually when you make the revoke trick you wouldn't have made it with the revoke, and that in the case of a doubt, it is logical to rule against the culprit could see you through. >He won the trick in which he revoked, that is what 64A1 tells. I am >beginning to worry about the explanation you gave. But there is always the >possibility to blame the laws as they are written. 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 Jun 1 23:56:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51Drb211617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:53:37 +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 f51DrUt11613 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:53:31 +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 PAA01866; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:52:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA29189; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:52:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010601155627.00861e80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:56:27 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Delibarately losing a match In-Reply-To: <3B177735.5000400@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:06 1/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Thinking out of the 'box' > > by Kees Tammens > >Here's a scenario: You're playing the last board of >the qualification for the final of a national championship, >with sixteen pairs qualifying. You reach an ice-cold >6H. At that moment the rankings are published. You >are in 17th place. You can see that if your make your 6H contract you will >stay in 17th place but if you go down this will have the effect that you climb into >15th place and earn yourself a berth in the final! AG : a similar case nearly happened in the Belgian Football (Soccer) playoffs for accession to Premier Division. There were four teams, playing a double round-robin. Team A (Turnhout) could not access to the Premier, because they didn't fulfill some requirements about financial health. However, they could take part in the playoffs, and it soon become apparent they would play them seriously. Team B (Molenbeek) ended 3rd in the regular season. If team A won the playoffs, and by force didn't promote, team B would automatically promote because they were the best-placed 'authorized' team in the regular season. After 3 matches, teams A, B and C (Geel) were still in contention. Now, it appeared possible that, in the next-to-last match, team B would have good reason to lose to team A (and it would be difficult to prove they did it on purpose, since Football is a game of inches, and one goal is enough ...). If the beated A, maybe C could win the round-robin, but if they lost to A, A would win the round-robin, and ... B would promote. Happliy, the problem fixed itself : a) A lost to D in the 4th round, making the 'losing strategy' dangerous : even so, A would not be sure to win the round-robin b) B beat C in the same round, then went on by smashing both A and D. They promoted the noble way. But what would have happened if ... Of course, if the laws were cleverly written, that is, if the first team in the round-robin doesn't promote, then the second one does, there would be no problem from square 1. 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 Jun 1 23:56:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51Drrq11623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:53:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f51Drlt11619 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA17985; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:52:48 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jun 01 15:51:56 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 <01K49ATP7RTG007AO4@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:52:37 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:51:29 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:52:31 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Roger Pewick'" , blml Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B874@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 09:00 1/06/01 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >Did you read 64A1? What do you have to explain then? I only > can find one > >argument, which is that he thinks that the revoke trick is > the one in which > >the revoke becomes apparent. Well, you should be able to > clarify that. > > You see, Ton, the poor guy doesn't understand why the correction, in > tricks, should be higher than the difference the revoke > genuinely created. > He heard that the Laws were concerned with equity, and > doesn't feel the > present case is equitable to him; > In such a case, you're better not to answer 'omdat het zo in het boek > staat'. To give the impression of lawyering would be bad > indeed. To explain > that the Laws can't foresee everything, that usually when you make the > revoke trick you wouldn't have made it with the revoke, and > that in the > case of a doubt, it is logical to rule against the culprit > could see you > through. > >He won the trick in which he revoked, that is what 64A1 tells. I am > >beginning to worry about the explanation you gave. But there > is always the > >possibility to blame the laws as they are written. > > Regards, > > Alain. Sorry if I didn't understand the problem. The problem you describe is unsolvable. Which makes it easy to handle but unsatisfying for the victims. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 2 00:05:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51E2Qt11648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:02:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51E2Jt11644 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f51E1Tl14303 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:01:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200106011401.f51E1Tl14303@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:01:23 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at May 31, 2001 01:23:13 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 David Stevenson writes: > > Ron Johnson writes > > >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" > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [ahem!] Well it was certainly true at the time. If your point is that he plays in the US more frequently these days, it's valid. But at that time of this AC he hadn't yet started playing in the US so frequently. If your point is that he isn't the strongest player any longer, well you know the scene better than I. But I'd bet that either he or Robson would be the main candidates. > >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." > > The fact that Tony has written this does not mean it has any truth in > it whatever. Different situations are to be treated in different ways, > and no sport ever does away with local regulations completely. > > Quite frankly, Tony is talking utter bilge. > > Suppose you play in Mostrova, where smoking is considered acceptable > throughout the country, in the home, in the workplace, wherever. In > bridge events, naturally, you may smoke, why not, everyone does. But > Tony would argue they have not taken the international view in their > smoking regulation. I don't agree. All local regs have negative consequences for players who have to go on to play under different regs at higher levels. It's clearest when you look at ACBL trials conducted under ACBL rules. Then they run into situations they're ill prepared for. (Though they're hardly alone. Re-reading Tony Forrester's reports from the 1987 Bermuda Bowl I note that he had to qualify with a different system than the one he played in the Bermuda Bowl. Absolutely the first time he was able to play TRS in competition was at the Bermuda Bowl.) To be clear, though I may winge about specific Orange Book scenarios, I wouldn't have any proplems playing under them. But while they make sense on the local club scene, they do create problems for the elite players when forced to play under different regs. And they create problems for TDs and ACs because of differing expectations. > >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) > > So, the whole case had **nothing whatever to do with the regulation.** > If the chosen call was routine, then there were no LAs. You know better David. If the ask is deemed to pass UI -- as it would be under the Orange Book regulations -- then the issue of LAs must be gotten into. Routine call and no LA are hardly the same. Imagine this situation: W N E S -- P 1C 2C P* 2S 2N P 3N *clear break of tempo. We'll stipulate that whatever the alerting regs were on the 2C call, they were followed. And that NS had a properly filled card available. You may find East's 2NT on AQ A53 KQT7 AT63 unremarkable -- or routine. But you still would have to decide whether there were LAs right? And if you judge that (say) pass was a LA, you would not permit the 2NT call. This AC didn't get into that because they judged (correctly to my mind) that West passed no UI at his first turn by a) asking about the meaning of 2C and b) passing in tempo. What's more, let's say that the ruling in hesitation example is "result satands". If NS appeal would you expect the deposit to be retained? I'd be very surprised if that happened. -- 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 Jun 2 00:11:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51E5iT11662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:05:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51E5bt11658 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:05:38 +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 QAA12885; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:00:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA08629; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:04:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010601160824.007b3c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:08:24 +0200 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <200105311715.NAA10115@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.32.20010529191643.006bbbf8@pop3.iag.net> <200105301408.f4UE8Q311820@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <6LXACvA0bQF7Ewby@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:15 31/05/01 -0400, Michael Farebrother wrote: >Playing in the club, people ask about my Alerts pretty much all the time >- but that that's because I play a fair amount more science than most in >the club, and also occasionally come in with a weird system (so much so >that I've been asked, with a resigned tone, "So what system are you >playing today?") AG : this is a fellow scientist speaking. I've heard this sentence quite frequently. BTW, they often were right. 'When playing against Gottchie, always ask, you never know what the crazy guy is trying this time' is a well-known motto in Brussels, apart from the fact that the very one who formulated it forgot at least twice, which cost him dear. SMOn, the answer to 'when should you ask' depends somewhat on the opponents : not only on their degree of scientificity, not only on how often they alert non-alertable bids, but also on whether there is any risk to create UI for them. Yes, I know, they should not use it, but telling where it was used is often difficult. But most people tend only to ask about Alerts that >they don't remember from previous playings against that pair. AG : mmh. This reasoning could be dangerous. Never heard of that pair who played 1NT-2H as hearts and a minor, but changed it to 5H/4S after pass, because they would have opened the other one ? Both cases did once happen to us in the same 4-board segment, and the second time, the opponent said 'yes I know', except that she didn't, of course ... The TD needed some time to explain her that it was indeed possible that the meaning of the bid had changed in 15 minutes time. 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 Sat Jun 2 00:13:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51E7k211668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51E7dt11664 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:07:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-47-193.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.47.193]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f51E6Xv09093 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:06:33 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001301c0eaa3$feb7c880$c12f7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:58:46 +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: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Jerry Fusselman ; David Stevenson ; Sent: 01 June 2001 08:46 Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > May be we should start to introduce automatic > explanation by partner in the first 2 rounds of > bidding, in cases of non natural calls. This is > not law, but regulation. Why don't we start with > some experiments, or is it done somewhere already (ACBL)? > +=+ Ah, yes...... and then after partner's next call I could explain what his call means if the agreement is as he has described it, and what his call means if the agreement is as I understand it...... with a like procedure for him with my next call, and so on ...+=+ > > > > > > > > But at least 70% of those with a need to know > > > about 4C on this auction will have clubs, so it is > > > mostly the EBU regulation's fault that this > > > happens where you play. > > +=+ I believe that players should have the right > > not to ask about an alerted call where the > > explanation given in reply appears more likely > > on balance to assist the alerting side than to > > assist the questioner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > They have that right, isn't it? Is this conversation > going to support you or me with regard to your > oneliner today? Normally this will not happen, > the laws take care for that possibility. > > ton > +=+ Oh, both of us, I should think..... I was contemplating those arguments - regulations if they exist - that say players should ask about every alerted call .... and I was reminding myself about a European recommendation that I seem to recall, it is not recent, - to save questions until the end of the auction if the answer can have no earlier interest for the questioner...... But, of course, we could have a game with correct information AI to all the players. We could tell each player to alert and explain his own call... er, maybe, that is :-)) Or to put it another way, do we want partnership understandings to be cleared up all the way through the auction by having the meaning of each call just made explained to the player who made the call (as well as opponents)? Changes the game a bit doesn't it? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 2 00:22:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51EHLu11693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:17:21 +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 f51EHFt11689 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:17:15 +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 QAA05945; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:16:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA16633; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:16:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:20:07 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert 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 00:22 1/06/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > >I prefer something like "A simple request for explanation after an >alerted call (or a call that has more than one common non-alertable >meaning) will seldom be considered to convey any information about the >askers hand. TDs have considerable discretion to adjust if they feel in >any way that this privilege is being abused*." > >*A primary example of abuse is an enquiry about a call whose meaning >should have been discovered prior to the auction or could easily be >ascertained by a cursory inspection of the CC" AG : no good ! The 'cursory inspection' is UI-creating too. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 2 00:23:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51EHwU11699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:17:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51EHmt11695 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:17:49 +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 155pm7-0009k9-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:19:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:14:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 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 >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >>Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>>> 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 ~ +=+ >> >>To be more specific, L90B7 implies that minor errors >>in procedure, such as failing to count one's cards, >>should *not* be subject to a PP *unless* such an >>error requires the TD to consequently (not merely >>subsequently) award an adjusted score. > > L90B7 is merely an example. The meat of the Law is in L90A, which >includes the words "violates correct procedure". It is thus completely >legal to give a PP for violating correct procedure, whatever happens. > I have a guy at the YC who insists on putting his bidding cards down sideways and not overlapping. Once a player complained that he hadn't seen a bid because of this I felt able to warn the guy that he should adopt correct procedure as laid down in the bid-box regulations and that whilst I didn't actually *want* to enforce it, he should be aware that he was violating correct procedure. We're getting there ... slowly. > > But that does not mean that there is no such situation, and to limit >the TDs unnecessarily seems unfortunate. Fortunately L90A does not >limit them very much. > 90A is very useful in this sort of strange situation. -- 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 Jun 2 00:30:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51EOcp11719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:24:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51EOUt11715 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:24:30 +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 155ppo-0007rJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:23:28 +0000 Message-ID: <$OKPU5AHU6F7Ewb0@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:21:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200105301604.RAA23105@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200105301639.JAA25334@mailhub.irvine.com> <6Ycw2NAaTjF7Ewqc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <060301c0ea1a$1966f140$3ba6aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Jerry Fusselman writes >>David Stevenson writes: > >>> People keep saying on this list that it should not happen, but it >>> does. The EBU's regulation, which many have criticised, may or may not >>> be right, but it is an attempt to control a situation as it exists, not >>> as it ought to but does not exist. >> snip > > What would happen if we took up your regulation? The number of >questions would increase, but not at the right time. We would go back >to getting leads against 3NT from C xx when Stayman was asked about, and >so on. > > Of course, you can say, we could solve that with lots of rulings. But >we are not talking Flight A here: we are talking club bridge, and lesser >county bridge: this is where regulations of this sort are needed to help >with ethics. We do not want rulings: we want something to try to >persuade people not to do too many unethical things. along with having played a little bridge under EBU regulations, I have also directed about 65,000 tables of it. The great mass of UK bridge players are very comfortable with the regulation, and understand exactly why it is just as it is. They appreciate that asking a question for the lead is something one tries not to do, and many of them will even say "there's no way i could lead a heart, after that question partner" even if I would have allowed the heart lead as being the only LA. Now when the UK players get to this stage then they really do understand why the regulation is there, what it sets out to achieve, and furthermore actively encourage its use. This is a *good thing*. cheers john > > Perhaps our regulation is wrong, but it is not obviosuly so: when it >was introduced it reduced an abuse quite considerably. The EBU's >regulation did not create the situation - the situation was there. > -- 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 Jun 2 00:31:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51EQ5r11728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:26:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51EPwt11724 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:25:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA07368; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:24:48 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA22788; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:24:48 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010601162848.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:28:48 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ron.Johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <200105301604.RAA23105@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 17:04 30/05/01 +0100, 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. AG : the opinion of many is that 'a question' here applies to more specific questions, eg 1D - (1H) - 1NT* S : Yes please ? (no UI) W : strong relay, 11+, about any pattern S : you mean he may have no H stopper ? (undue question, UI) Here, the fact that 1NT was alerted, which is not a common occurrence in this sequence, made South's first enquiry perfectly 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 Sat Jun 2 00:32:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51ERsG11737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:27:54 +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 f51ERmt11733 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:27:48 +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 155pt3-000GKR-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 14:26:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:25:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@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 <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes snip > > >May be we should start to introduce automatic explanation by partner in the >first 2 rounds of bidding, in cases of non natural calls. This is not law, >but regulation. Why don't we start with some experiments, or is it done >somewhere already (ACBL)? > I was very keen to try this at the YC as an exercise on the basis that the EBU may be interested in the results. When I was told they were not I decided to abandon it - keeping in with the YC card committee takes enough time :)))) > snip -- 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 Jun 2 02:15:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51GBf611943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f51GBZt11939 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:11:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA18734 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA06067 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106011610.MAA06067@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] older players X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This just turned up on another mailing list. Perhaps it is relevant to Roger's problem with the revoke explanation -- or perhaps not! > Once or twice a week in my work as a stockbroker, with older people a > predominate part of my clients, I realize that the person in front of me is > having trouble understanding me. The solution is usually at hand: I speak > more slowly and SPEAK UP. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 2 02:22:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51GK1H11966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:20:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51GJrt11961 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:19:54 +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 155rgF-000DVB-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:21:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:01:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@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 > >> >> Grattan Endicott> "Most men make little use of their speech >> other than to give evidence against their >> own understanding." >> - 1st Marquis of Halifax. >> >> > David Stevenson writes: >> > >> > > Now, suppose the bidding goes 1S Pass 4C[alert] >> > > What is that? I tell you that a club holding is at >> > > least a 70% possibility after that question here. >> > > No, it should not be, but for ruling this game we >> > > have to accept what happens, not what should >> > >happen. > >After 4C they will have clubs anyway. So a clubholding is at least a 40% >possibility after the 4C bid here. >I don't like the idea to declare this question as unauthorized information >for partner, if that is what some of us want to say. The question is legal >and the answer is authorized information also. What the UI suggests is that this player will ask when holding a leadable club holding. Of course, there are better solutions, as has been pointed out, like always asking, or checking the CC in advance for particular problem positions. But as far as making a ruling is concerned we have to deal with what players do rather than what we think players should do. One worry is that if people play [as some do] that a double of Swiss 4C shows clubs, and a double of a Splinter 4C shows diamonds, that what happens in practice with some pairs is this: Ask, get told it is Swiss, then pass: leadable diamond holding Ask, get told it is Splinter, then pass: leadable club holding Pass without asking: no leadable club or diamond holding If the question [or absence thereof] is not UI then this is close to being legal: even assuming it is not legal it is very difficult to deal with if it is not UI. > There are some statements >given previously about this problem. I like the approach in which a >remarkable action by partner now can be taken care of. Kind of a 25% rule: >if partner now does something which is not a logical alternative it should >not be allowed. But this approach might be too lenient, it is a difficult >situation. And I hope that those telling the bridge world that L 20F1 deals >with it by demanding to start asking about the 1S bid are convinced that to >be nonsense. > >May be we should start to introduce automatic explanation by partner in the >first 2 rounds of bidding, in cases of non natural calls. This is not law, >but regulation. Why don't we start with some experiments, or is it done >somewhere already (ACBL)? If you have automatic explanation, you do not need the question, and you have the Announcements as in the ACBL. I have still not managed to persuade an English club to try them, but I am interested to see them in action. I have heard that one problem with Announcements is that [like alerts] some ACBL players do not bother to learn the regs, so they announce various things that are not announceable. Still, the idea seems good to me. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 2 02:22:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51GK7N11971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:20:07 +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-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 f51GK0t11967 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:20:01 +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 155rgF-000DVD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:21:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:10:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 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 >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >[snip] > >>>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. > >[snip] > >The inconsistency of the current method of awarding >PPs is also criticised on page 172 of *Bridge, Zia >and me* by Michael Rosenberg: > >>When something 'goes wrong' at the table, but there >>is clearly no damage, then the Director is usually >>not called, and a procedural penalty is not even at >>issue. However, when there *might* have been >>damage from a similar infraction, and the Director >>*is* called, the case may or may not go to >>Committee. Those pairs against whom no Director >>was called receive an unfair advantage. And even >>those cases which *do* go to committee are not >>handled uniformly. In fact, Committees have >>tended to assess procedural penalties almost randomly. > >Rosenberg is a hobbit, who wishes to melt L90 in the >nearest Crack of Doom. He correctly argues that PPs >are not the appropriate way to punish unethical >behaviour, recommending disciplinary action (for >example, suspension) instead. Quite possibly. But when a PP is awarded it is hardly ever for an unethical act. >Rosenberg also asserts that inadvertent errors should >not be punished by PPs. I get sick and tired when I play of opponents who cannot give a hoot about keeping the game going right. Some opponents are perfect, or nearly: others could not give a tinker's cuss about the rules. They are boorish, ill-mannered, selfish. they are slow and when they get behind refuse to catch up, and blame their opponents anyway. They see no reason to try to work out where to move the boards. They do all sorts of things. They are bad enough with the occasional PP: with no PPs at all they would merely get worse. >But I both agree and disagree with Hirsch Davis and >Michael Rosenberg. > >My pragmatic philosophy on L90 is that disruptive >carelessness by a player (for example, fouling a >board) - despite inadvertently occurring - is >psychologically less likely to *recur*, if the >TD applies an appropriate PP. > >However, this desirable psychological effect will only >happen if the TD's victim hit with a PP for an >irregularity perceives it as *a fair cop*. For >example: > >1. Dozy partnership moves to wrong table; >2. Movement collapses; >3. TD imposes a PP; >4. Dozy partnership accepts that Truth and Justice > have prevailed, and will also be more careful > when moving to a new table in future. > >On the other hand, it seems that Hirsch Davis's love of >consistency would result in this scenario: > >1. Dozy partnership moves to wrong table; >2. TD notices in time, movement unaffected; >3. TD imposes a PP; >4. Dozy partnership outraged at unjust penalty > given that irregularity was not established; >5. Out of pique, partnership even more dozy; >6. Partnership never plays at that club again. What about 1 Dozy partnership moves to the wrong table as they do twice a week; 2 TD notices in time, movement unaffected; 3 Pair following loses time *again*; 4 Pair following is rushed and fouls up simple play; 5 TD does not impose PP because he thinks Dozy pair may not come back; 6 Pair following gets sick of Dozy pair and leaves club in disgust. I do not approve of PPs for odd occurrences, but they are necessary for pairs that do things wrong again and again. -- 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 Jun 2 03:01:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51GwL411998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:58:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f51GwEt11994 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:58:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA20567 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA06542 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:57:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106011657.MAA06542@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I do not approve of PPs for odd occurrences, but they are necessary > for pairs that do things wrong again and again. BLML (mostly David S. and me, I confess) had quite a long discussion of PP's a few years ago. I think David and I even came close to agreement, a remarkable occurrence. Some or all of the discussion may be on David's Laws page; at least it used to be there. As I recall, our conclusion was that a PP is proper if all of the below are true: 1. There has been a violation of procedure. 2. The offender ought to have known better and avoided the violation. 3. In the TD's judgment, a PP will have an educational or deterrent effect, reducing future violations. There is nothing in the above about whether the violation did in fact cause a problem or not. On balance, I think it might be wise to add: 4. The violation is of a sort that can be expected to cause problems. I think it is quite unwise to condition a PP on the outcome of the particular, although the TD might well take this into account in judging item 3. Of course in addition, the SO might have regulations mandating PP's in some circumstances. If my memory about our discussion is wrong, I am sure David will correct 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 Sat Jun 2 03:35:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51HWeu18787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 03:32:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51HWXt18783 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 03:32:34 +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 f51HVXS83048 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:31:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@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, 01 Jun 2001 13:31:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:20 AM 6/1/01, alain wrote: >At 00:22 1/06/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: > > > >I prefer something like "A simple request for explanation after an > >alerted call (or a call that has more than one common non-alertable > >meaning) will seldom be considered to convey any information about the > >askers hand. TDs have considerable discretion to adjust if they feel in > >any way that this privilege is being abused*." > > > >*A primary example of abuse is an enquiry about a call whose meaning > >should have been discovered prior to the auction or could easily be > >ascertained by a cursory inspection of the CC" > >AG : no good ! The 'cursory inspection' is UI-creating too. This thread is heading in an uncomfortable direction, and suggests cause for serious concern on the part of our lawmakers. Full disclosure of methods is fundamental to bridge as we know it; without it we would be playing a very different game. Every player has an absolute right to know as much about his opponents' methods as the opponents themselves do. But any time a player exercises that abolute right, whether by asking a question or even just by inspecting an opponent's CC, he is potentially creating UI. This puts his side at a disadvantage, either creating the possibility that a good score may be taken away in adjudication, or, if his partner is sufficiently knowledgeable, experienced and ethical, by subjecting him to to the self-imposition of the constraints required by L16C2. In either case, he winds up being effectively penalized for his attempt to elicit the level of disclosure to which, we claim, he is absolutely entitled. The law *cannot* credibly tell players that they have an absolute right to full disclosure, and then penalize them if they attempt to exercise that right. Something has to give; we must modify the rules (either the laws themselves or the way we interpret them) so that either: (a) the right to disclosure is constrained by making it inappropriate to exercise that right when doing so would create UI, or (b) the scope of L16C2 is limited so as not to apply when the UI arises from a player's proper exercise of his right to full disclosure. IMO, seeking a solution along the lines of (b) rather than (a) will be less fundamentally disruptive to the game as it is currently played, albeit still a very significant change. Tim is on the right track. To try to strike a balance that preserves the right to full disclosure without effectively legalizing the use of UI in any disclosure-related situation, we need to come up with some notion of the "proper" way to exercise that right that would protect players from the "penalty" of subjecting themselves to the constraints of L16C2 while simultaneously allowing L16C2 to apply when a player abuses that right by exercising it improperly. We want players to be free to easily and conveniently elicit information about their opponents' methods while insuring that it remains illegal, for example, to ask a question in such a way as might be intended to suggest a particular holding, or to suggest that partner would be particularly well-advised to listen to the answer. IOW, we want to establish that the asking of a question, or the reading of a CC, does not per se create presumptive UI, while still leaving TDs and ACs with sufficient discretion to find that a particular question, or a particular reading of a CC, can create UI. This won't be easy, but I think we can move in the right direction by rewording the law so as to modify its application without altering its substance. Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner in which a question is asked or a reply given". 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 Jun 2 05:28:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51JOv117751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 05:24:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51JOmt17740 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 05:24:50 +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; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:19:42 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c0ead0$515b29c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: <002201c0ea67$eefc0a00$cf357bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:17:52 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > To be more specific, L90B7 implies that minor errors > > in procedure, such as failing to count one's cards, > > should *not* be subject to a PP *unless* such an > > error requires the TD to consequently (not merely > > subsequently) award an adjusted score. No. It implies nothing of the sort. It says that PPs may be assessed for offenses such as those listed, period. For most of them, a warning should precede the assessment of a PP. That's up to the TD. > > > +=+ Yes. However the law leaves discretion in the > matter to the Director (who may have guidance > from the regulating authority). The reference to > violation of procedure is in the general authority > given, not in the examples in B where the words > 'but are not limited to' are to be noted. Every "but are not limited to" that I have seen does not give *carte blanche* to include anything whatsoever, but has the same effect as ending the list with "and the like." The example offenses in L90B all concern violations of procedures that are peculiar to duplicate bridge. To use L90 for general disciplinary purposes is contrary to its purpose. That purpose was made clear in the 1975 edition of the Laws, in which the title "Disciplinary Penalties" was changed to "Procedural Penalties." We have L91 for the disciplining of serious offenders who must be dealt with immediately. The ACBL properly uses L91, not L90, as the authority for Zero Tolerance offenses. Less serious offenses, when unrelated to duplicate bridge procedures, are a subject for "outside the game" disciplinary measures when an in-game lecture does not suffice. 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 Jun 2 06:04:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51K2xK19364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 06:02:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51K2pt19355 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 06:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA21268 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:01:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:05:24 -0400 Message-ID: <00b101c0ead6$31bdd800$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: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> Importance: Normal 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 > IOW, we want to establish that the asking of a question, or > the reading > of a CC, does not per se create presumptive UI, while still > leaving TDs > and ACs with sufficient discretion to find that a particular > question, > or a particular reading of a CC, can create UI. This won't be > easy, but I think we can move in the right direction by rewording > the law so > as to modify its application without altering its substance. > > Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the > words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting > "the manner > in which a question is asked or a reply given". Pardon me for beating a dead horse, however, I think this is a clear example where the playing environment should effect the Laws. Online Bridge provides for private communication channels that can potentially alleviate some of the UI problems. I seem to recall efforts a couple years ago to develop a modified version of the Laws suitable for Online Bridge. Did that ever progress? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOxf1g7FdMFbo8dHHEQKapwCeOXeDQNvsE9AYt6lqlY4m9x/m7UsAoNJN um7rBvC8CktrWH3B8Wgl6Vy9 =jihw -----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 Jun 2 09:05:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51N3b206856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:03:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f51N3Tt06848 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:03:30 +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 155xvo-0000bz-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:02:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:02:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B871@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20010601153350.00861740@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010601153350.00861740@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 09:00 1/06/01 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >>Did you read 64A1? What do you have to explain then? I only can find one >>argument, which is that he thinks that the revoke trick is the one in which >>the revoke becomes apparent. Well, you should be able to clarify that. > >You see, Ton, the poor guy doesn't understand why the correction, in >tricks, should be higher than the difference the revoke genuinely created. >He heard that the Laws were concerned with equity, and doesn't feel the >present case is equitable to him; Please tell him that the Laws are *not* solely concerned with equity, as the Scope makes clear. Revokes are penalised because otherwise people will revoke deliberately. -- 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 Jun 2 09:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51N3Zt06855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:03:35 +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 f51N3Rt06843 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:03:27 +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 155xvo-0000c0-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:02:27 +0000 Message-ID: <4gS$ZjBCf+F7Ew53@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:06:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B872@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n >l>, Kooijman, A. writes > >snip >> >> >>May be we should start to introduce automatic explanation by partner in the >>first 2 rounds of bidding, in cases of non natural calls. This is not law, >>but regulation. Why don't we start with some experiments, or is it done >>somewhere already (ACBL)? >> >I was very keen to try this at the YC as an exercise on the basis that >the EBU may be interested in the results. When I was told they were not >I decided to abandon it - keeping in with the YC card committee takes >enough time :)))) I told him that the EBU is interested in the results. I am surprised to read this. Having spoken to John on the telephone it appears that what he meant is that I told him the EBU was interested, someone else told him it wasn't, and he decided that meant they weren't. Peculiar. -- 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 Jun 2 09:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f51N3N706838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:03:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f51N3Ft06830 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:03:16 +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 155xvo-000ICh-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 23:02:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 20:00:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200106011401.f51E1Tl14303@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200106011401.f51E1Tl14303@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 >David Stevenson writes: >> Ron Johnson writes >> >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." >> >> The fact that Tony has written this does not mean it has any truth in >> it whatever. Different situations are to be treated in different ways, >> and no sport ever does away with local regulations completely. >> >> Quite frankly, Tony is talking utter bilge. >> >> Suppose you play in Mostrova, where smoking is considered acceptable >> throughout the country, in the home, in the workplace, wherever. In >> bridge events, naturally, you may smoke, why not, everyone does. But >> Tony would argue they have not taken the international view in their >> smoking regulation. >I don't agree. All local regs have negative consequences for players who >have to go on to play under different regs at higher levels. It's clearest >when you look at ACBL trials conducted under ACBL rules. Then they run >into situations they're ill prepared for. > >(Though they're hardly alone. Re-reading Tony Forrester's reports >from the 1987 Bermuda Bowl I note that he had to qualify with a different >system than the one he played in the Bermuda Bowl. Absolutely the first >time he was able to play TRS in competition was at the Bermuda Bowl.) > >To be clear, though I may winge about specific Orange Book scenarios, >I wouldn't have any proplems playing under them. But while they make >sense on the local club scene, they do create problems for the elite >players when forced to play under different regs. And they create >problems for TDs and ACs because of differing expectations. If you put it that way, then that is true - but so would be the reverse. If you make the regs the same world-wide, yes that helps international players - but it causes trouble at local level. It is therefore not desirable - or not necessarily. I suppose it is how you read: >"This ruling illustrates the dangerers of individual NCBOs adopting >> >regulations that are inconsistent with the international view." If you read as a comment on a perfectly acceptable practice, that is fine, but it does not read that way to me. As a criticism I think it is short-sighted, making insufficient allowance for the much greater domestic problems created by regulations that do not suit the particular country involved. >> >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) >> >> So, the whole case had **nothing whatever to do with the regulation.** >> If the chosen call was routine, then there were no LAs. > >You know better David. If the ask is deemed to pass UI -- as it would be >under the Orange Book regulations -- then the issue of LAs must be >gotten into. Routine call and no LA are hardly the same. Oh, I am sorry, I thought they were. >Imagine this situation: > >W N E S >-- P 1C 2C >P* 2S 2N P >3N > >*clear break of tempo. > >We'll stipulate that whatever the alerting regs were on the 2C call, >they were followed. And that NS had a properly filled card available. > >You may find East's 2NT on > >AQ >A53 >KQT7 >AT63 > >unremarkable -- or routine. But you still would have to decide whether >there were LAs right? And if you judge that (say) pass was a LA, you >would not permit the 2NT call. But if I judge a pass to be an LA I would not refer to 2NT as routine. I think this was just a difference over the meaning of a word and not a substantive difference. >This AC didn't get into that because they judged (correctly to my mind) >that West passed no UI at his first turn by a) asking about the meaning >of 2C and b) passing in tempo. However, that is not what appeared to be said. ACs that do not explain their decisions well will often get misunderstood. If they say that a bid was routine then I do not understand no UI to be passed as the reason for allowing the call: I understand them to be allowing it for lack of 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 Sat Jun 2 10:16:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f520Ebk09363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:14:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f520EUt09356 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:14:31 +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 155z2m-000Kzr-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:13:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 00:58:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@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 >Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the >words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner >in which a question is asked or a reply given". I am surprised that you consider these equivalent. If I overcall 3C showing [I believe] clubs, and partner, in answer to a question, says it shows diamonds plus hearts you are suggesting this should be AI to me? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 2 18:37:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f528adX07348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:36:39 +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 f528aUt07340 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:36:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-64-134.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.134]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f528ZIr07543; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:35:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000901c0eb3f$05f6c7e0$8640063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00b101c0ead6$31bdd800$7d04e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 09:05:05 +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 Discussion List Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 9:05 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > I seem to recall efforts a couple years ago to > develop a modified version of the Laws suitable > for Online Bridge. Did that ever progress? > +=+ The WBF draft online laws are currently in a consultation stage - complete but may be amended in the light of representations from Game Providers. They are to be presented to the full WBFLC and the Executive in Bali for ratification. I have the task of pulling the strings together, with our subcommittee, when I return from the EBL Championships (i.e. after July 3). ~ 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 Jun 2 23:11:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f52DAfn17706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:10:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe16.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f52DAWt17693 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:10:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 06:09:27 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.97] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B871@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 21:56:05 -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 Jun 2001 13:09:27.0306 (UTC) FILETIME=[40850EA0:01C0EB65] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk All's well that ends well. The gentleman dug up 64A and the light shined bright. The world is safe for another day. Thanks all for your suggestions. roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Roger Pewick' ; blml Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 2:00 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] explaining L64A to a hurting soul | | > | > 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. | | | I don't understand the facts regarding tricks won and lost, but they don't | matter. | | Did you read 64A1? What do you have to explain then? I only can find one | argument, which is that he thinks that the revoke trick is the one in which | the revoke becomes apparent. Well, you should be able to clarify that. | | | > | > 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. | | He won the trick in which he revoked, that is what 64A1 tells. I am | beginning to worry about the explanation you gave. But there is | always the possibility to blame the laws as they are written. Last week two opponents revoked on the same trick. Consider this layout in a spade contract. Dummy leads the HK, east plays the D4 and west ruffs and leads a heart. Does anyone consider the outcome to be astounding? A KQJ - - 8 9 x A 23 45 - - T 23 8 | ton | | | 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 Sun Jun 3 09:34:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f52NRVj05485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 09:27:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f52NROt05481 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 09:27:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA22149 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:26:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA20958 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 19:26:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106022326.TAA20958@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > We would say, "We know Mrs. Guggenheim might well make this completely > irrational play at the table, ... (Very old message of Eric's.) Could someone refresh my memory about Mrs. Guggenheim? She makes _bad_ plays of course: neglects obvious safety plays, draws trumps when she should be ruffing losers, can't figure out which suit to set up first, doesn't know about avoidance plays, etc. But does she make _irrational_ plays? She most certainly does not play low cards in a suit before high ones. Which of Mollo's characters is she most like? Walter the Walrus? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 4 09:03:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f53MwA304462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:58:10 +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 f53Mw3t04458 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:58:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-67-100.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.100]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f53LgoL15566 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:42:50 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000f01c0ec76$35c9fd60$64437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be><4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 22:42:30 +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, June 02, 2001 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > Eric Landau writes > > >Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the > >words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner > >in which a question is asked or a reply given". > > I am surprised that you consider these equivalent. > > If I overcall 3C showing [I believe] clubs, and partner, in answer to > a question, says it shows diamonds plus hearts you are suggesting this > should be AI to me? > > -- > David > +=+ Whilst there are clearly problems occasioned questions following an alert, and we should look at possibilities for improving the situation, I am not at all convinced that anything I have seen in this thread presents a solution where we do not leap from the pan into the fire. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 4 09:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f53NHi104496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:17:44 +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 f53NHbt04492 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:17:38 +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 f53JVaa19656 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000701c0ec63$9825b7a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200106022326.TAA20958@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:30:00 -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: "Steve Willner" > > From: Eric Landau > > We would say, "We know Mrs. Guggenheim might well make this completely > > irrational play at the table, ... > > (Very old message of Eric's.) > > Could someone refresh my memory about Mrs. Guggenheim? She makes _bad_ > plays of course: neglects obvious safety plays, draws trumps when she > should be ruffing losers, can't figure out which suit to set up first, > doesn't know about avoidance plays, etc. But does she make _irrational_ > plays? She most certainly does not play low cards in a suit before high > ones. She was one of a rubber bridge foursome in S. J. Simon's *Why You Lose at Bridge*, required reading for every bridge player. The other three were Futile Willie, The Unlucky Expert, and Mr. Smug. Simon showed how each threw away thousands of points during a rubber bridge session consisting of nine deals. Mrs Guggenheim "is a large, ample woman always on the verge of tears. She takes lessons and walks around with a Culbertson summary in her handbag. And she can neither bid nor play a hand. And never will." She wants partner to play the hands, but partners make the mistake of always trying to do so. With this partner, you don't sacrifice, and you don't raise her to game or slam without much more than the required strength. Futile Willie is a near-expert with very poor judgment. The Unlucky Expert bids and plays flawlessly, but the actions he takes assume an expert partner, so he loses. Mr. Smug eschews safety plays, can't count, etc. This book contains a classic treatment of penalty doubles of overcalls, but those of us who play penalty doubles as he recommends must have system notes available, because an TD or AC will not believe that some doubles *must* be taken out, with no LA. (St Louis NABC Appeal 2). > Which of Mollo's characters is she most like? Walter the Walrus? Don't know that. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 4 09:30:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f53NRIW04517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:27:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f53NRBt04513 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:27:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-001.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.193]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA18835 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:16:46 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:17:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:17:21 +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 wrote: "I don't like the idea to declare this question as unauthorized information for partner, if that is what some of us want to say." Proposal: What about handling the situation along the lines of our STOP CARD regulations. A hesitation of 10 seconds approx over an opponent's STOP card is treated as UI free. So why not say that asking about an opponents Alert is also a UI free situation? 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 Jun 4 09:53:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f53Nnpw04557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:49:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f53Nnit04553 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:49:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-78.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.78]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f53FSan07970 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:28:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B1A0336.9E74025E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:28:22 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faultydirecting) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@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 02:21 PM 5/31/01, Grant wrote: > > >At 07:59 AM 5/29/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >"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. > > > > This doesn't follow. It is quite possible that 'careless _to > >the point of stupidity_' is equivalent to irrational, while ordinary > >carelessness is 'normal'. Just as a following a line that is so wildly > >_inferior_ that even the worst bridge player can see in a second that it > >won't work is not 'inferior' for claims purposes, it is irrational. At > >some point careless and inferior become irrational, while still being > >careless and inferior. > > Point taken. I concede that there is such a thing as "careless to the > point of irrationality", and that that implies "irrational". I do not, > however, concede that "stupid" implies "irrational" -- there are people > whom I consider rather stupid but quite rational, and see no > contradiction in that -- nor, consequently, that "careless to the point > of stupidity" implies "irrational". > Indeed Eric. Stupid and Irrational are not on the same scale. But the problem here is that we are not even talking about the same thing that is either stupid, careless or irrational. The making of the claim in this situation is stupid. Any fool can see that play is not over yet. That it is careless to claim at this stage, since you are going to suffer the worst of all normal lines. But this player has claimed nevertheless. Now he can have two different reasons for doing so. Either he can have a false picture of the hand, something "stupid to the point of irrational". Such a player shall be deemed to play in the same manner. Or the player can have had a lapse of concentration, and have claimed without considering. I call that a hasty claim, and it sometimes happens. This is not stupid (it is careless) and it is not irrational, even if we might call it that because no rational person would do it. But it is not evidence that the player would play irrationally afterwards. He shall be deemed to play equally hasty and carelessly, but in many examples, some people would also ascribe irrational lines to the claimer. The two are quite distinct. The claim is stupid, but for the lines chosen afterwards we need not include the "stupid" ones into the normal 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 Mon Jun 4 17:00:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f546vIt00537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:57:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f546vAt00533 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:57:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-41-202.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.41.202]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f546tvL22346 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:55:58 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001901c0ecc3$7b301360$ca297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:55:42 +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 5.00.2615.200 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@octavia.anu.edu.au' Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 6:17 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > Ton wrote: > "I don't like the idea to declare this question as > unauthorized information for partner, if that is > what some of us want to say." > > Proposal: > What about handling the situation along the > lines of our STOP CARD regulations. A hesitation > of 10 seconds approx over an opponent's STOP > card is treated as UI free. So why not say that > asking about an opponents Alert is also a UI > free situation? > +=+ It may be a good idea to get back to basics. As the law now stands, if A asks a question his partner B - without screens - may use the information contained in opponent's response to that question. But if either the content of the question, or the fact that it is asked, conveys a suggestion to B as to the nature of A's hand this is information that B may not use. This is a matter of Law and not of regulation. Whether there is an alert or not does not affect the Law on what information is authorized. Whether the disclosure regulations provide for alerts or not does not affect the Law on what information is authorized. We have to change the Law if we want to get away from these inescapable facts. The reason there could be a problem in adopting the line that Fearghal suggests is that we could be providing extra scope for players to convey information to their partners other than by the meaning of the legal auction, because the Director could no longer judge this to have happened. Whether this is desirable or not is something for the legislators to consider in the light of their view of the balance of opinion on the subject in the bridge world, and their view of what is best for the game. ~ Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 4 22:03:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54C0Pk03861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:00:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f54C0Ht03855 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:00:18 +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 f54BxAA13013 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 07:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604075146.00b16d40@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, 04 Jun 2001 07:59:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <00b101c0ead6$31bdd800$7d04e080@isi.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@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 04:05 PM 6/1/01, Richard wrote: > > IOW, we want to establish that the asking of a question, or > > the reading > > of a CC, does not per se create presumptive UI, while still > > leaving TDs > > and ACs with sufficient discretion to find that a particular > > question, > > or a particular reading of a CC, can create UI. This won't be > > easy, but I think we can move in the right direction by rewording > > the law so > > as to modify its application without altering its substance. > > > > Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the > > words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting > > "the manner > > in which a question is asked or a reply given". > >Pardon me for beating a dead horse, however, I think this is a clear >example where the playing environment should effect the Laws. Online >Bridge provides for private communication channels that can >potentially alleviate some of the UI problems. I don't see this example as being relevant at all. The context here is L16A: "a player makes available to his partner extraneous information". Whether changed or not, the words in question can have no effect if partner cannot hear (or see) the question or the reply, as would be the case in on-line play (or with screens). 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 Jun 4 23:24:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54ClxQ14917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:47:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net ([207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f54Clqt14911 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:47:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7002 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 12:45:49 -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 ; 4 Jun 2001 12:45:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 12680 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2001 12:45:49 -0000 Received: from dell600.msns.man.ptd.net ([24.229.82.38]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Jun 2001 12:45:49 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 08:45:33 -0400 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> <00b101c0ead6$31bdd800$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604075146.00b16d40@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604075146.00b16d40@127.0.0.1> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 07:59:37 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >I don't see this example as being relevant at all. The context here is >L16A: "a player makes available to his partner extraneous >information". Whether changed or not, the words in question can have >no effect if partner cannot hear (or see) the question or the reply, as >would be the case in on-line play (or with screens). > Not totally correct, at least in the case of play on OKBridge (I have no experience of any other on-line service). No, you cannot see the question or the answer, but particularly if partner or opponent is not a quick typist, then you can be fairly sure that a question has been asked, provided that all four people at the table have a reasonable net connection (it's the norm to announce the fact if some outside circumstance is causing the delay). Having said that, the amount of UI which is passed is certainly far less than in face-to-face bridge. 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 Jun 5 00:01:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54DA1s15073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:10:01 +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-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 f54D9st15069 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:09:54 +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 f54D8mA17847 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:08:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604080636.00ab7da0@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, 04 Jun 2001 09:09:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:58 PM 6/1/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the > >words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner > >in which a question is asked or a reply given". > > I am surprised that you consider these equivalent. > > If I overcall 3C showing [I believe] clubs, and partner, in answer to >a question, says it shows diamonds plus hearts you are suggesting this >should be AI to me? David is right, of course; my suggested rewording will not do. What I was thinking about was the manner in which partner asks a question or gives a reply (or, through the "as by", says anything at all). The substance of the reply must, of course, remain a possible source of UI. I was too focused on the particular issue we were discussing. Revised proposal: "the manner in which a call, question or statement is made, a reply to a question". The immediate objective is to make clear that asking (or not asking) a question should not be considered a possible source of UI per se, but should be if there is something "improper" about the way it is done. S: "1S." W: "Pass." N: "4C." S: "Alert." E: "Please explain." The point here is that even if you believe that E's request for an explanation virtually guarantees a club holding, his absolute right to know what 4C means should preempt the possible application of L16, else he is effectively being penalized for exercising what the law holds to be his absolute right. But if we change the law to clarify this, we must be careful to do so in such a way that if E instead says "That doesn't show clubs, does it?" we can still throw the book at him. Now perhaps my thinking is overly simplistic, biased by the fact that in the circles I play in, the above dialog would not particularly suggest a club holding (bear in mind that in the ACBL it is perfectly acceptable to ask about a bid when its meaning cannot affect your next action), and reaching this objective in a manner appropriate for all may take a whole new law. Perhaps we need to introduce some sort of "lesser form of UI" to cover the extraneous information produced by a proper disclosure request. In possession of such "minor UI", a player would not be permitted to make an "unusual" or "abnormal" call, or some such, but would not be subject to the stringent constraints of L16. Admittedly, my position falls apart if one rejects my premise that the right to full disclosure is absolute. This does seem to be the position of the EBU, which appears to have said that you have the right to full disclosure during the auction only at such time as it may affect your next action. That is a position which I strongly oppose, but that's for another thread. 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 Jun 5 00:01:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54DRQu15095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:27:26 +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 ([205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f54DRKt15091 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 23:27:20 +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 f54DPFS02276 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604091315.00b15b40@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, 04 Jun 2001 09:25:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <200106022326.TAA20958@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:26 PM 6/2/01, Steve wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > We would say, "We know Mrs. Guggenheim might well make this completely > > irrational play at the table, ... > >(Very old message of Eric's.) > >Could someone refresh my memory about Mrs. Guggenheim? She makes _bad_ >plays of course: neglects obvious safety plays, draws trumps when she >should be ruffing losers, can't figure out which suit to set up first, >doesn't know about avoidance plays, etc. But does she make _irrational_ >plays? She most certainly does not play low cards in a suit before high >ones. Mrs. Guggenheim is the creation of S.J. Simon, introduced in "Why You Lose At Bridge" (a genuine "must read", voted in a (Bridge World?) poll a while back as the best bridge book ever). Simon gives us cleverly drawn prototypes of the sorts of characters one meets in a typical rubber club. Mrs. Guggenheim is the world's worst bridge player, but has the "saving grace" of knowing how bad she is, so does her very best to let her partner make all the decisions and play all the contracts. >Which of Mollo's characters is she most like? Walter the Walrus? I haven't read enough of Mollo to say for sure. Think of her as having the Rabbit's level of ability with none of his luck. She just as often pulls the wrong card, but it doesn't work out well in the end, so she tries to pull as few cards 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 Tue Jun 5 01:13:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54EP1915157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:25:01 +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-5.cais.net ([205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f54EOst15153 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:24:55 +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 f54EMn027095 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@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, 04 Jun 2001 10:23:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/More faultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B1A0336.9E74025E@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@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 05:28 AM 6/3/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > I concede that there is such a thing as "careless to the > > point of irrationality", and that that implies "irrational". I do not, > > however, concede that "stupid" implies "irrational" -- there are people > > whom I consider rather stupid but quite rational, and see no > > contradiction in that -- nor, consequently, that "careless to the point > > of stupidity" implies "irrational". > >Indeed Eric. Stupid and Irrational are not on the same >scale. > >But the problem here is that we are not even talking about >the same thing that is either stupid, careless or >irrational. > >The making of the claim in this situation is stupid. Any >fool can see that play is not over yet. That it is careless >to claim at this stage, since you are going to suffer the >worst of all normal lines. > >But this player has claimed nevertheless. Quite so. It doesn't matter whether the fact or manner of the claim was reasonable, careless, stupid or irrational. It has been made, and why it was made as it was does not affect how we deal with it. >Now he can have >two different reasons for doing so. Either he can have a >false picture of the hand, something "stupid to the point of >irrational". Such a player shall be deemed to play in the >same manner. Right again. If he claims 8 tricks from a heart suit of AKQJ5432 opposite a void, perhaps he simply failed to consider that the suit might be 5-0 (stupid), or perhaps he thought that there are only 12 hearts in a bridge deck (irrational), but it doesn't matter. >Or the player can have had a lapse of concentration, and >have claimed without considering. I call that a hasty >claim, and it sometimes happens. >This is not stupid (it is careless) and it is not >irrational, even if we might call it that because no >rational person would do it. Semantics here. If "no rational person would do it" it is irrational by definition. But rational people have lapses in concentration, do things without considering, or act too hastily all the time. >But it is not evidence that the player would play >irrationally afterwards. Agreed. I have argued previously that there is no correlation between a tendency to claim stupidly and a tendency to play stupidly. But even if there were, it would not affect the manner in which the law requires us to adjudicate. >He shall be deemed to play equally >hasty and carelessly, but in many examples, some people >would also ascribe irrational lines to the claimer. I doubt it, since to do so would be in clear contradiction to the law. I suspect that Herman is thinking of "some people" who would ascribe lines to the claimer which he considers irrational but they do not. The particular ax which I have been grinding here for some time is that if we persist in the belief that what is irrational depends on the class of player involved, such differences can only be entirely matters of personal opinion, and can never be resolved. >The two are quite distinct. The claim is stupid, but for >the lines chosen afterwards we need not include the "stupid" >ones into the normal ones. Up to this point, I believe Herman and I have been in substantive agreement, but here we differ. IMO, the law says that we must include the stupid lines, but not the irrational ones, which, as Herman admits in his first sentence, are not the same thing at all. In the AKQJ5432 opposite void case, we do not allow declarer to "rethink" his stupidity in having overlooked the possibility of a 5-0 break *until* he cashes the first round, when the overlooked possibility is revealed as fact, and it becomes irrational not to notice it. We do not "force" him to continue the suit until he loses to the 10 as though we presume that he doesn't know that there are 13 hearts in the deck -- even if we have reason to believe that he really might not know that there are 13 hearts in the deck. 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 Jun 5 01:13:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54EkO515174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:46:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net ([205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f54EkHt15170 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:46:18 +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 f54EgB050896 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 10:42:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604102545.00ab3ba0@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, 04 Jun 2001 10:42:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:17 PM 6/3/01, Fearghal wrote: >Proposal: >What about handling the situation along the lines of our STOP CARD >regulations. >A hesitation of 10 seconds approx over an opponent's STOP card is >treated as UI free. >So why not say that asking about an opponents Alert is also a UI free >situation? There is no similarity at all. The 10-second hesitation is UI free only because it is mandatory (which also means that a failure to hesitate is UI per se). What the stop-card analogy does suggest is that we could solve the problem of UI from questions asked in response to alerts by making the asking of such questions mandatory (which would make the failure to ask UI per se), which some here have proposed. That would indeed solve the problem of UI in those specific cases. IMO, it would be detrimental to the game in ways that have nothing to do with UI matters and which far outweigh what it would gain in helping us deal with UI, making it a "cure worse than the disease", but that's for another thread. 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 Jun 5 01:46:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54FHO522706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:17:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f54FHHt22673 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:17:18 +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 f54FDm030889 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:13:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604105252.00b0db00@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, 04 Jun 2001 11:13:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <001901c0ecc3$7b301360$ca297bd5@dodona> References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:55 AM 6/4/01, Grattan wrote: >+=+ It may be a good idea to get back to basics. >As the law now stands, if A asks a question his >partner B - without screens - may use the >information contained in opponent's response >to that question. But if either the content of >the question, or the fact that it is asked, >conveys a suggestion to B as to the nature of >A's hand this is information that B may not use. >This is a matter of Law and not of regulation. The problem, as I see it, is that the law goes well beyond this. If it were merely the case that the fact of asking a question were "information that B may not use", then the "I was always going to bid that no matter what" defense would be an acceptable one, and we know it is not, even if deemed to be unquestionably true. >Whether there is an alert or not does not affect >the Law on what information is authorized. >Whether the disclosure regulations provide for >alerts or not does not affect the Law on what >information is authorized. We have to change >the Law if we want to get away from these >inescapable facts. > The reason there could be a problem in >adopting the line that Fearghal suggests is that >we could be providing extra scope for players >to convey information to their partners other >than by the meaning of the legal auction, >because the Director could no longer judge >this to have happened. Whether this is desirable >or not is something for the legislators to >consider in the light of their view of the balance >of opinion on the subject in the bridge world, and >their view of what is best for the game. Grattan has convinced me that accomplishing what I believe to be the desired effect will indeed require changing the law. The challenge will be to write new law which prevents B from "using" the information gained by the fact that A has asked a question without subjecting him to the full panoply of strictures contained in L16A, which, as the previous discussion reveals, come uncomfortably close (at least in the minds of some) to being an automatic penalty for asking a question. Although my earlier reply to Fearghal may have erroneously suggested otherwise, I am in full accord with Grattan that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with alerts, other than the fact that alerts make the current jurisprudence in this area even more complex than it would be without them, and thus provide even greater incentive for getting it right. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 5 01:47:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54FS4H24809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:28:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f54FRvt24805 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:27:58 +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 f54FNo055033 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:23:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604111610.00b0f310@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, 04 Jun 2001 11:24:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010604075146.00b16d40@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> <00b101c0ead6$31bdd800$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604075146.00b16d40@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:45 AM 6/4/01, brian wrote: >On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 07:59:37 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > > >I don't see this example as being relevant at all. The context here is > >L16A: "a player makes available to his partner extraneous > >information". Whether changed or not, the words in question can have > >no effect if partner cannot hear (or see) the question or the reply, as > >would be the case in on-line play (or with screens). > >Not totally correct, at least in the case of play on OKBridge (I >have no experience of any other on-line service). No, you cannot >see the question or the answer, but particularly if partner or >opponent is not a quick typist, then you can be fairly sure that >a question has been asked, provided that all four people at the >table have a reasonable net connection (it's the norm to announce >the fact if some outside circumstance is causing the delay). >Having said that, the amount of UI which is passed is certainly >far less than in face-to-face bridge. I don't play on line, but I'm starting to appreciate the difficulty of providing special rules for on-line play. It sounds like it will make a big difference whether such rules are written as though people play on line with 28.8 KB modems during high-net-traffic periods or with cable modems during low-traffic periods. Or we could just require that all on-line play must use Microsoft software, so that frequent delays, drops, hangs and glitches would be too routine to provide any information 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 Tue Jun 5 03:51:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54GvWX24855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:57:32 +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 f54GvKt24851 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:57:26 +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 156xAA-000GoC-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 17:25:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:14:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001901c0ecc3$7b301360$ca297bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001901c0ecc3$7b301360$ca297bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: Fearghal O'Boyle >> Ton wrote: >> "I don't like the idea to declare this question as >> unauthorized information for partner, if that is >> what some of us want to say." >> >> Proposal: >> What about handling the situation along the >> lines of our STOP CARD regulations. A hesitation >> of 10 seconds approx over an opponent's STOP >> card is treated as UI free. So why not say that >> asking about an opponents Alert is also a UI >> free situation? >+=+ It may be a good idea to get back to basics. >As the law now stands, if A asks a question his >partner B - without screens - may use the >information contained in opponent's response >to that question. But if either the content of >the question, or the fact that it is asked, >conveys a suggestion to B as to the nature of >A's hand this is information that B may not use. >This is a matter of Law and not of regulation. >Whether there is an alert or not does not affect >the Law on what information is authorized. >Whether the disclosure regulations provide for >alerts or not does not affect the Law on what >information is authorized. We have to change >the Law if we want to get away from these >inescapable facts. Alternatively, we can decide the Law does not apply. Suppose we have a regulation that after an alerted call, the next player *must* ask the meaning. Then the fact that he has asked a question does not provide any information to partner. There is a suggestion that the next player asking about an alerted call should provide no usable information to partner, and that there should be a regulation saying so. Especially if one effect is that nearly everyone does ask nearly every time then that seems workable. In fact, the UI tends to come when a question is not asked: but it is not entirely clear why it has not been asked: it might mean the player has nothing in his hand, but it might mean he knows the answer. > The reason there could be a problem in >adopting the line that Fearghal suggests is that >we could be providing extra scope for players >to convey information to their partners other >than by the meaning of the legal auction, >because the Director could no longer judge >this to have happened. Whether this is desirable >or not is something for the legislators to >consider in the light of their view of the balance >of opinion on the subject in the bridge world, and >their view of what is best for the game. I do not think we should go this far - apart from it being illegal. But to introduce a regulation that says the next player may ask without the normal risks so long as the call is alerted would get rid of a lot of UI problems. It would work better in the ACBL than in England/Wales. Our alerting process is simpler, which has plusses and minusses: one of the minusses, which people from elsewhere tend to scoff at a lot is that certain calls are usually alertable whatever their meaning, and as a result players often do not ask such calls. I do not think this regulation would help, or even be workable in such cases. But overall I think the regulation is workable. It seems legal so long as we do not say UI does not exist - after all, inflexion of voice, words used in asking questions and all such things do and would still provide UI. Not only do I think it workable, but I am fairly sure it is in use somewhere - is it Australia? -- 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 Jun 5 06:03:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54J2Et12956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 05:02:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com ([147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f54IxRt12948 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 05:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA05288 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:57:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:58:07 -0400 Message-ID: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$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 > Suppose we have a regulation that after an alerted call, the next > player *must* ask the meaning. Then the fact that he has asked a > question does not provide any information to partner. Wouldn't it just be easier to replace all Alerts followed by mandotory requests for explanations with Announcements? For what its worth, I have long advocated that online bridge should adopt just this sort of system. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOxvaPrFdMFbo8dHHEQIe0gCeJL4dXm56LQXZe1O5//jt8cx5fgkAnRUE ss2Pp/wW4+wTFQwoAQeiOtUN =ELyL -----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 Jun 5 07:25:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54L5Ok20476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:05:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu ([129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f54L4Et20053 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:05:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54EE4f00630 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:14:04 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:59:00 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200106022326.TAA20958@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200106022326.TAA20958@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01060414140403.00578@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 02 Jun 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > We would say, "We know Mrs. Guggenheim might well make this completely > > irrational play at the table, ... > > (Very old message of Eric's.) > > Could someone refresh my memory about Mrs. Guggenheim? She makes _bad_ > plays of course: neglects obvious safety plays, draws trumps when she > should be ruffing losers, can't figure out which suit to set up first, > doesn't know about avoidance plays, etc. But does she make _irrational_ > plays? She most certainly does not play low cards in a suit before high > ones. > Which of Mollo's characters is she most like? Walter the Walrus? Mrs. Guggenheim is a creation of S.J. Simon; she is a very weak player who knows it, and is trying to learn everything but it doesn't sink in. She doesn't make irrational plays unless she is confused; I would expect that if there are five small trumps in dummy and declarer leads the queen, she would cover from Kx because she has learned always to cover an honor with an honor. But she is almost a real player, and Simon has suggestions for playing with her as your partner at rubber bridge. She is easy to handle because she is happy to be dummy. Walter is more of a caricature; he believes only in rules, and if he has 11 points and partner opens, he will not force to game even though he has a good fit. Likewise, he will signal every doubleton when it is of no use to partner, allowing the Hideous Hog to count the hand. Walter is the better illustration of a player bound by rules, as in the discussions whether it is proper to list 15-17 as your 1NT range if you are not a Walrus and will open 1NT on KQJ KQJ Kxxxx QJ. -- 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 Jun 5 08:45:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f54MMH528735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:22:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com ([24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f54MKDt28731 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:20:13 +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 f54MJDa14901; Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , Subject: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:08:55 -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 Today I perused the Anaheim NABC Appeals casebook to see how PPs were treated by ACs, TD panels, and the casebook commentators, who include David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott. Rich Colker is the casebook editor. Rich and others deny that PPs are used to augment the provisions of UI and MI laws, but there were some cases in Anaheim that sure look like augmentation to me. Case 1 was a UI (tempo) violation that resulted in an adjusted score. Both David and Grattan thought that a PP should have been tacked on. Case 13 was a UI (Hesitation Blackwood) violation that resulted in an adjusted score. The AC considered a PP, but "declined to do so due to the lack of screening, the timing of the Director call, and the lack of solid evidence confirming the disputed hesitation." Rich, Grattan, and others thought that a PP was in order, Grattan writing "..there should be a price on brazen impropriety." Reading the PROPRIETIES section of the Laws, I see no reference to PPs or L90 Oversight? The authors brag in the Preface that cross-referencing in the 1997 Laws was made more explicit. Someone will now point to L74C, "Violations of Procedure," as an implied reference to L90. That title was "Breaches in Propriety" before 1997, with the same contents, which were taken from the rubber bridge laws. Only 74C8 (don't leave the table needlessly before the round is called) is uniquely applicable to duplicate bridge. I suppose that could be considered a procedural violation, but it's quite a stretch to say that breaches in propriety are violations of procedure. (Is L74C8 ever enforced?) Anyway, titles are not part of the Laws. Case 16 was a UI (tempo) violation that resulted in an adjusted score. Rich wrote that he "could go with" a PP for the OS. Case 22 was a UI (Alert failure) violation that was found to have caused no damage, table result stands. A PP was assessed by the AC "for violating L73C." What happened was that a player took advantage of the UI but that had no effect on the final contract. In his comments, Rich wrote "PPs are disciplinary in nature..." As I wrote before, the title of the applicable Law was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in 1975. I wish some member of the Drafting Committee for the 1975 Laws were still around to explain why, but I bet it was because this Law was being misapplied in ways illustrated at Anaheim. Case 26 was a UI (mis-Alert) violation for which the AC adjusted the score. The majority of the casebook panelists, including David and Grattan, thought that a PP should have been tacked on. Case 37 was an MI (Alert failure) violation that was found to have caused no damage, table result stands. The OS was assessed a PP by the TD panel for failure to provide full disclosure. The casebook panelists disagreed about the need for a PP. There are several ways to look at these PPs. They can be seen as (1) augmentations of the (inadequate?) Law covering an infraction, (2) as penalty for a separate infraction, or (3) as punishment for causing an appeal. (1) and (3) are clearly not defensible, so that leaves (2). However, the only PPs issued (AFAIK) at Anaheim were by TD Panels and ACs. That smacks of (1) or (3), whatever words are used to justify them. Let's grant that it's (2). Then should we not call the TD to report every harmless MI or UI violation that occurs at our table, so the opponents can get their PP? As often said, I feel that offenses not of the sort listed in L90B should be handled outside the game, not within the game. Rich and many TDs have told me that the paperwork required to track such offenses outside the game would be too much to handle. I see, however, that Appeal Without Merit Warnings (AWMWs) are recorded without difficulty. I suggest treating meritless appeals as procedural violations subject to a PP, and substituting a simple recording system, or the existing Player Memo,for violations such as those shown above. And tell TDs and players to participate, not leaving it to TD Panels and ACs. This would provide a more uniform treatment of the wrongdoers than the haphazard PP method. I am repeatedly told that the present approach works, providing sufficient deterrence for wrongdoers. Beating children also works, but that is not a justification for it. Besides, how do they know it works, other than in local games, when there is no tracking system? And how does a potential PP deter someone who is having a bad game? Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 5 12:20:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f552Ir404350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:18:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f552Ikt04344 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:18:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-64-7.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.64.7]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f552HVL28859; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:17:31 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003701c0ed65$c0111a40$07407bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: , References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:11:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: ; Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:08 PM Subject: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC > Today I perused the Anaheim NABC Appeals > casebook to see how PPs were treated by ACs, > TD panels, and the casebook commentators, > who include David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott. > Rich Colker is the casebook editor. > > Rich and others deny that PPs are used to > augment the provisions of UI and MI laws, but > there were some cases in Anaheim that sure > look like augmentation to me. > +=+ If that assertion is made I think it not well expressed. The Director's discretion to award a PP for a violation of correct procedure etc. is separately based from the other provisions in the laws (as to penalties and adjusted scores). Such powers are to be used with moderation but they exist for application when the Director, in his discretion, considers the player deserving of something more than the laws provide where they deal with the particular infraction. Inter alia the level of play, the quality of the player, repeated offences, may each influence the Director's view. The restriction in Law 12B relates to adjusted scores, not to procedural penalties. The award of a PP supplementary to the application of the relevant Law does augment the pain an offender experiences consequent upon the offence. But it does so for considerations that go beyond the infraction alone in itself, and this is what I think the assertion intends to say. +=+ > > Case 1 was a UI (tempo) violation that resulted > in an adjusted score. Both David and Grattan > thought that a PP should have been tacked on. > > Case 13 was a UI (Hesitation Blackwood) > violation that resulted in an adjusted score. > The AC considered a PP, but "declined to do > so due to the lack of screening, the timing of > the Director call, and the lack of solid evidence > confirming the disputed hesitation." Rich, > Grattan, and others thought that a PP was in > order, Grattan writing "..there should be a > price on brazen impropriety." Reading the > PROPRIETIES section of the Laws, I see no > reference to PPs or L90 Oversight? The > authors brag in the Preface that cross- > referencing in the 1997 Laws was made more > explicit. > +=+ I am having some difficulty in discerning exactly where Marvin is coming from. So I am disinclined at this moment to comment on his theme. However, I think it worth a reminder that the contents of 'Chapter VII - Proprieties' are Laws. They come within the statement at the front of the book that says: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure". Also that the extended cross-referencing is not said to be exhaustive; Law 90 can perhaps be seen to cross-reference in some degree to every other Law. Unfamiliarity with the working of the ACBL 'screening' procedure is a handicap, but I am not aware that it can in any way remove the answerability of players for what they have done. A reference to 'lack of screening' as reason not to penalize is something of a mystery to me. ~ 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 Jun 5 17:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f557Z9a20080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f557Z1t20074 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:35:03 +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 ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:35:21 +0200 Message-ID: <003101c0ed92$afd8c100$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:39:43 +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 f557Z4t20076 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > 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 says it better than I could. I said "Always ask," but it should be > "Always ask if you don't understand." > > My wife Alice taught me a good procedure. Whenever there is an Alert, she > looks at the opposing cc (often having to ask for it, despite regulations > that say it should be on the table), and if that doesn't provide the > answer she requests an explanation. Every time. This policy reduces the > amount of UI opponents must create (an Alert explanation is UI to partner) > and eliminates our own UI. It is common for the Alerter's partner to > "Announce" the meaning, trying to be helpful. If we wanted that, we would > not consult their cc. > > She also does this for unAlerted skip bids, looking to see, for instance, > whether preempts and weak two bids are sound, light, or very light. Every > time. With a mandated 10-second wait, there's plenty of time to do this. > > She adopted this procedure on her own. It's a good one that everyone > should follow. In my interpretation of the principles behind the skip bid warning, it is mandatory to do so. The idea is that you show anactive interest in the auction. What better way to do that than by looking at their cc or by asking about the auction? > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA 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 Tue Jun 5 19:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f559ewE01517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:40:58 +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-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 f559emt01506 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:40:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157DJd-000P80-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:40:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:14:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey writes >> Suppose we have a regulation that after an alerted call, the next >> player *must* ask the meaning. Then the fact that he has asked a >> question does not provide any information to partner. > >Wouldn't it just be easier to replace all Alerts followed by >mandotory requests for explanations with Announcements? >For what its worth, I have long advocated that online bridge should >adopt just this sort of system. I do not think this is quite so correct as it sounds. It is easier for someone to understand an answer if they have asked a question. Announcements are fine for really simple stuff. But the moment you get to something as complex as the meaning of 1S 2D X I think you need a question as well as an answer otherwise there will be a lot of confusion. -- 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 Jun 5 19:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f559evQ01516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:40:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f559emt01505 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:40:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157DJd-000P81-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:39:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:29:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Meeting people MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I seem to be travelling around a bit this year! I do hope to see as many as possible of my RGB, AGB and RGBO friends. Please come and have a chat if you and I are at the same venue. Apart from wandering around England and Wales as usual, I shall be in: Jun 8-10 Amsterdam, Netherlands, directing Jun 16-17 Copenhagen, Denmark, directing and playing Jun 25-27 Hospital for more tests [yuk!] Jul 28- 5 Skovde, Sweden, directing Aug 31- 5 ??????, Italy, tutor on EBL director's course [STC] Oct 20- 2 Bali, appeals committee Nov 18-27 Las Vegas, USA, playing [STC] -- 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 Jun 5 22:36:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55CZJX20815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:35:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.de (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f55CZBt20772 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 22:35:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 157G29-0000S4-01; Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:34:05 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.0.204.82]) by fmrl06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 157G21-0hkhTEC; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:33:57 +0200 Message-ID: <3B1CD17E.6FB91355@vwalther.de> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:33:02 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001901c0ecc3$7b301360$ca297bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Every alerted bid causes lots of (unallowed) informations: 1.) The "alert" itself gives an information to the Partner: Yes, Partner I understood that your bid was artificial. 2.) A question about the alert (or not asking about the alert) shows: I am interested in the meaning of this bid. 3.) And last but not least, the answer to the question gives the information what the answering person thinks about the alerted bid. The only way to avoid the information given at point 2. is a regulation that you have to ask for _every_ alerted bid. But you will increase the information given at 3. by introducing such a regulation. In fact we would not need the alert card: it would be equivalent to explain partners artificial bids automatically. We should try to minimize the information given in all these ways and should not diskuss solely one of these points. In complicated biddings I often think that asking about and explaining a bid is more useful for the opponents then for us. The DBV (german bridge association) tried to solve these problems in the following way: 1.) Do not alert bids over 3NT. (Opening bids excepted). Do not alert any natural bid. Do not alert any pass, double or redouble. (This rule is very new, the pro's and con's are still discussed) You should not alert any bid if there is no partnership agreement about it, even if the bid is obviously artificial. 2.) You should not ask about any bid if the answer will have no affect to your bidding. (according to the EBU-rgulations) 3.) You must not give any explenations you are not asked for. You must not tell what you guess about partners bid. Any of the informations given is unallowed information to the partner. Asking or not asking or having a close look to the CC are unallowed information to the partner. Especially asking about a bid and passing afterwords is usually treated as UI. If a partnership is playing without CC it looses its rights. The opponents are allowed to ask for the bids without creating UI. Sincerely, Volker Walther -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 5 23:04:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55D4bl01420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:04:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f55D4Ut01383 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:04:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-103-130.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.103.130]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f55D2J518216; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:02:19 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000701c0edbf$ac729220$8267063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:01:02 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 05 June 2001 02:14 Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > Richard Willey > writes > >> Suppose we have a regulation that after > an alerted call, the next player *must* ask > >> the meaning. Then the fact that he has > >> asked a question does not provide any > >> information to partner. > > +=+ The question whether information is conveyed is one of fact. It cannot be governed by a regulation that merely attempts to say that information has not been passed. All the circumstances of a situation, as far as they can be ascertained, are to be taken into account in judging whether information has been made available by a player to his partner. Whilst we would all like to believe that if the question is always put it cannot convey UI, this is not the truth of the matter. It would need to be asked invariably and always in precisely the same manner, with the same intonation, words, and so on. Slight variations can have their significance for the partner, the more so the more familiar is the partnership. So asking a question has to be deemed a possible source of UI no matter what, simply because players are human and do not act uniformly and impassively throughout. We might get there eventually by the high tech route, pressing keys, but not whilst we continue to interact as flesh and blood. This is the nature of the game. ~ 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 Jun 6 00:05:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55E1tE21833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:01:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f55E1et21742 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 157HNg-000MNi-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:00:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:13:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Today I perused the Anaheim NABC Appeals casebook to see how PPs >were treated by ACs, TD panels, and the casebook commentators, who >include David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott. Rich Colker is the >casebook editor. > >Rich and others deny that PPs are used to augment the provisions >of UI and MI laws, but there were some cases in Anaheim that sure >look like augmentation to me. It is time you learnt one fact of life. Black and white are not the only two colours [sic] in the world we live in. The whole article seems to be an attempt to prove something is true because the exact opposite is not true. In fact, like so many things, it is not a black or white issue. >Case 1 was a UI (tempo) violation that resulted in an adjusted >score. Both David and Grattan thought that a PP should have been >tacked on. > >Case 13 was a UI (Hesitation Blackwood) violation that resulted in >an adjusted score. The AC considered a PP, but "declined to do so >due to the lack of screening, the timing of the Director call, and >the lack of solid evidence confirming the disputed hesitation." >Rich, Grattan, and others thought that a PP was in order, Grattan >writing "..there should be a price on brazen impropriety." Reading >the PROPRIETIES section of the Laws, I see no reference to PPs or >L90 Oversight? The authors brag in the Preface that >cross-referencing in the 1997 Laws was made more explicit. > >Someone will now point to L74C, "Violations of Procedure," as an >implied reference to L90. That title was "Breaches in Propriety" >before 1997, with the same contents, which were taken from the >rubber bridge laws. Only 74C8 (don't leave the table needlessly >before the round is called) is uniquely applicable to duplicate >bridge. I suppose that could be considered a procedural violation, >but it's quite a stretch to say that breaches in propriety are >violations of procedure. (Is L74C8 ever enforced?) Yes. The basic rule of directing is that infractions are brought to the attention of directors, who then act on them. The main reason for L74C8 being so rarely applied [and some other similar Laws] is that it is very rare for a complaint to be received by the Directors. When such a complaint was made in the Huggill Trophy [local inter-County event] a few years back [dummy kept going out for a smoke] dummy was instructed to stay put for the rest of the stanza. There are a number of infractions that are not often insisted upon, but the current approach in running bridge is to run it in a practical way and not worry too much if the letter of the law is not followed in every single case. But the laws are there for when the abuse exists. In the case of Proprieties especially it is fair to say that actions that upset others are far more likely to be dealt with by Directors than actions that do not. I really do not see the point of discussing old titles. The new title is there because it is thought to be a better description, not because it means the same thing. >Anyway, titles are not part of the Laws. > >Case 16 was a UI (tempo) violation that resulted in an adjusted >score. Rich wrote that he "could go with" a PP for the OS. > >Case 22 was a UI (Alert failure) violation that was found to have >caused no damage, table result stands. A PP was assessed by the AC >"for violating L73C." What happened was that a player took >advantage of the UI but that had no effect on the final contract. >In his comments, Rich wrote "PPs are disciplinary in nature..." > >As I wrote before, the title of the applicable Law was changed from >"Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in 1975. I wish >some member of the Drafting Committee for the 1975 Laws were still >around to explain why, but I bet it was because this Law was being >misapplied in ways illustrated at Anaheim. There again, what is the point of rehashing old ideas? We now have a distinction which most Directors seem to understand. There are some borderline cases, and if a similar penalty is adjudged, does it really matter that much? When we give PPs for misuse of UI or giving MI they are PPs under L90A. >Case 26 was a UI (mis-Alert) violation for which the AC adjusted the >score. The majority of the casebook panelists, including David and >Grattan, thought that a PP should have been tacked on. > >Case 37 was an MI (Alert failure) violation that was found to have >caused no damage, table result stands. The OS was assessed a PP by >the TD panel for failure to provide full disclosure. The casebook >panelists disagreed about the need for a PP. So, there were several cases where we thought a PP should have been applied. Next. >There are several ways to look at these PPs. They can be seen as (1) >augmentations of the (inadequate?) Law covering an infraction, (2) >as penalty for a separate infraction, or (3) as punishment for >causing an appeal. > >(1) and (3) are clearly not defensible, so that leaves (2). Rubbish. What do you mean they are not defensible? If a player commits an infraction that is subject to adjustment and a PP then why should he not get an adjustment and a PP? In what way is this not defensible? OK, so you do not believe we should follow the laws as written, but we know that, and you have produced the old argument again. Unfortunately the rest of us are going to follow the laws anyway. In principle, we give an adjustment when an infraction has resulted in damage. We give a PP sometimes when an infraction occurred and the player should not have infracted. > However, >the only PPs issued (AFAIK) at Anaheim were by TD Panels and ACs. >That smacks of (1) or (3), whatever words are used to justify them. That's totally illogical. The reason for giving a PP and who gives them are not the same at all. >Let's grant that it's (2). Then should we not call the TD to report >every harmless MI or UI violation that occurs at our table, so the >opponents can get their PP? Why? >As often said, I feel that offenses not of the sort listed in L90B >should be handled outside the game, not within the game. You can say this as many times as you like, but the TDs are required to apply the Law. You want us not to follow the Law, and that is not acceptable. > Rich and >many TDs have told me that the paperwork required to track such >offenses outside the game would be too much to handle. I see, >however, that Appeal Without Merit Warnings (AWMWs) are recorded >without difficulty. I suggest treating meritless appeals as >procedural violations subject to a PP, and substituting a simple >recording system, or the existing Player Memo,for violations such >as those shown above. And tell TDs and players to participate, >not leaving it to TD Panels and ACs. This would provide a more >uniform treatment of the wrongdoers than the haphazard PP method. You have never produced the least argument as to why haphazard PPs are a bad idea. Random penalties are normal in all walks of life [speeding offences being the great example] and they are an effective method. >I am repeatedly told that the present approach works, providing >sufficient deterrence for wrongdoers. Beating children also works, >but that is not a justification for it. Besides, how do they know it >works, other than in local games, when there is no tracking system? >And how does a potential PP deter someone who is having a bad game? If you persuade people to follow the rules of the game that is good. They will then tend to follow them all the time. Nothing you have written in this article has gone any way to suggesting the current method is not best. It is legal to give PPs for anything covered by L90A, despite your assertions to the contrary. It is sensible to give a number of PPs without worrying about the fact that lots of times when PPs might be given they are not. At the end of the day it is more important to run a game well than to worry about arbitrary levels of super-fairness. -- 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 Jun 6 00:41:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55EaBa03112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:36:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f55Ea3t03105 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:36:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f55EYuv02963 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:34:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:34 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert 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: <000701c0edbf$ac729220$8267063e@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > Richard Willey > > writes > > >> Suppose we have a regulation that after > > an alerted call, the next player *must* ask > > >> the meaning. Then the fact that he has > > >> asked a question does not provide any > > >> information to partner. > > > > +=+ The question whether information is conveyed > is one of fact. It cannot be governed by a regulation > that merely attempts to say that information has not > been passed. All the circumstances of a situation, > as far as they can be ascertained, are to be taken > into account in judging whether information has been > made available by a player to his partner. > It would need to be asked invariably and always > in precisely the same manner, with the same intonation, > words, and so on. True. But it doesn't resolve much. A couple of suggestions. Perhaps an alert should always be accompanied by the question "Do you know what that shows" an explanation being mandatory if either opponent answers in the negative. (By regulation we could say the question is implicit in the alert and requires a simple Yes/No from both opponents - this might also help in where the fact of the alert is later disputed). OK the fact that partner didn't know is still UI but I'm damned if I think what that might suggest about his hand. Alternatively provide a "Please Explain" card in the bidding box to minimise tonal/wording variation. (Actually there already is an orange card in the box already labelled "The Definition?" which could be used for this purpose). 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 Jun 6 00:41:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55EaGq03118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:36:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f55Ea9t03110 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:36:10 +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 ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:36:23 +0200 Message-ID: <016d01c0edcc$c87e3700$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:35:35 +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 f55EaCt03113 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Our experience is composed rather of > illusions lost than of wisdom acquired." > [Joseph Roux] > + = + - + - + - + - + - + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: 05 June 2001 02:14 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > > > Richard Willey > > writes > > >> Suppose we have a regulation that after > > an alerted call, the next player *must* ask > > >> the meaning. Then the fact that he has > > >> asked a question does not provide any > > >> information to partner. > > > > +=+ The question whether information is conveyed > is one of fact. It cannot be governed by a regulation > that merely attempts to say that information has not > been passed. All the circumstances of a situation, > as far as they can be ascertained, are to be taken > into account in judging whether information has been > made available by a player to his partner. Whilst we > would all like to believe that if the question is always > put it cannot convey UI, this is not the truth of the > matter. It would need to be asked invariably and always > in precisely the same manner, with the same intonation, > words, and so on. Slight variations can have their > significance for the partner, the more so the more > familiar is the partnership. So asking a question has > to be deemed a possible source of UI no matter what, > simply because players are human and do not act > uniformly and impassively throughout. > We might get there eventually by the high tech > route, pressing keys, but not whilst we continue to > interact as flesh and blood. This is the nature of the > game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Maybe the bidding box ought to contain not only an alert card, but also a 'please explain' card ;o) 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 Jun 6 01:17:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55FEIa15558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:14:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop2pub.verizon.net (smtppop2pub.gte.net [206.46.170.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f55FEBt15510 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:14:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust227.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.227]) by smtppop2pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id KAA153203290 Tue, 5 Jun 2001 10:21:14 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000001c0edd2$553ab600$e340193f@mike> From: "mike dodson" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604105252.00b0db00@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:29:14 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Eric Landau" wrote Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 8:13 AM > At 02:55 AM 6/4/01, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ It may be a good idea to get back to basics. > >As the law now stands, if A asks a question his > >partner B - without screens - may use the > >information contained in opponent's response > >to that question. But if either the content of > >the question, or the fact that it is asked, > >conveys a suggestion to B as to the nature of > >A's hand this is information that B may not use. > >This is a matter of Law and not of regulation. > > The problem, as I see it, is that the law goes well beyond this. If it > were merely the case that the fact of asking a question were > "information that B may not use", then the "I was always going to bid > that no matter what" defense would be an acceptable one, and we know it > is not, even if deemed to be unquestionably true. > > >Whether there is an alert or not does not affect > >the Law on what information is authorized. > >Whether the disclosure regulations provide for > >alerts or not does not affect the Law on what > >information is authorized. We have to change > >the Law if we want to get away from these > >inescapable facts. > > The reason there could be a problem in > >adopting the line that Fearghal suggests is that > >we could be providing extra scope for players > >to convey information to their partners other > >than by the meaning of the legal auction, > >because the Director could no longer judge > >this to have happened. Whether this is desirable > >or not is something for the legislators to > >consider in the light of their view of the balance > >of opinion on the subject in the bridge world, and > >their view of what is best for the game. > > Grattan has convinced me that accomplishing what I believe to be the > desired effect will indeed require changing the law. The challenge > will be to write new law which prevents B from "using" the information > gained by the fact that A has asked a question without subjecting him > to the full panoply of strictures contained in L16A, which, as the > previous discussion reveals, come uncomfortably close (at least in the > minds of some) to being an automatic penalty for asking a question. > > Although my earlier reply to Fearghal may have erroneously suggested > otherwise, I am in full accord with Grattan that this issue has nothing > whatsoever to do with alerts, other than the fact that alerts make the > current jurisprudence in this area even more complex than it would be > without them, and thus provide even greater incentive for getting it right. If the topic is now how to change the law could someone review for me how the law read in the sixties or seventies when the Bridge World's Appeals Commitee pamphlets were published? IIRC, a distinction was drawn between UI from proper and improper procedure. In this case, asking correctly would impose a burden on partner to avoid a 25% suggested action but allowing normal (50%) actions. Asking improperly (eg. "does that show clubs?") brings something like current LA rules into play. This always seemed a reasonable distinction but I don't know any of the history behind it or subsequent changes. Please, Grattan, others. Mike Dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 04:05:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55I2lD07858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 04:02:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp07.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 f55I2dt07852 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 04:02:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19364 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2001 18:01:05 -0000 Received: from pm11-048.wnpk.fl.iag.net (HELO claire) ([207.30.73.48]) (envelope-sender ) by smtp07.mail.onemain.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Jun 2001 18:01:05 -0000 Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> X-Sender: clairele@pop3.iag.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:59:14 -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 01:31 PM 6/1/01 -0400, you wrote: >Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the >words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner >in which a question is asked or a reply given". I think especially in ACBL land that the enforcement of having 2 CC's easily available needs to get enforced first before we start to open up L16 and making some questions non UI, a Question is no matter how you turn means to get information across that is Not thru the bids/calls made or the cards played. I found it highly annoying to in many many cases even in regional events with "super flight A" not getting 2 CC's available without having to ask for em, lots carrys them in there own lap and others in the purse when i want to get them given over to the opps at the beginning of the round. And looking on a complete CC is far far less UI giving to pard since he do not know what you are looking on at that CC. Compare it to the follow situation 1Cl! (asking and holding a club stack himself) 1Cl! (read the CC BEFORE the bid and finds the info it can be very short) A prepared "defender" reads thru the CC on what any 1st action bid will mean and will not get surprised when any potential alerts comes up at that early stage of the bidding. I think we have to be very reluctant to making changes to L16 regarding what questions are "legal" and what isnt Robert > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 04:09:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55I6fI07934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 04:06:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f55I6Zt07928 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 04:06:35 +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 f55I6Xa07437; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002901c0edea$0b361dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c0ed65$c0111a40$07407bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:03:38 -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" > From: Marvin L. French > > > Today I perused the Anaheim NABC Appeals > > casebook to see how PPs were treated by ACs, > > TD panels, and the casebook commentators, > > who include David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott. > > Rich Colker is the casebook editor. > > > > Rich and others deny that PPs are used to > > augment the provisions of UI and MI laws, but > > there were some cases in Anaheim that sure > > look like augmentation to me. > > > +=+ If that assertion is made I think it not well > expressed. The Director's discretion to award a > PP for a violation of correct procedure etc. is > separately based from the other provisions in > the laws (as to penalties and adjusted scores). > Such powers are to be used with moderation > but they exist for application when the Director, > in his discretion, considers the player deserving > of something more than the laws provide where > they deal with the particular infraction. Inter > alia the level of play, the quality of the player, > repeated offences, may each influence the > Director's view. We know that is the practice, no need to explain it. > The restriction in Law 12B relates to > adjusted scores, not to procedural penalties. We know that too. I did not refer to L12B. > The award of a PP supplementary to the > application of the relevant Law does augment > the pain an offender experiences consequent > upon the offence. But it does so for considerations > that go beyond the infraction alone in itself, and > this is what I think the assertion intends to say. Also understood. It's being treated as a separate offense. > > > > Case 1 was a UI (tempo) violation that resulted > > in an adjusted score. Both David and Grattan > > thought that a PP should have been tacked on. > > > > Case 13 was a UI (Hesitation Blackwood) > > violation that resulted in an adjusted score. > > The AC considered a PP, but "declined to do > > so due to the lack of screening, the timing of > > the Director call, and the lack of solid evidence > > confirming the disputed hesitation." Rich, > > Grattan, and others thought that a PP was in > > order, Grattan writing "..there should be a > > price on brazen impropriety." Reading the > > PROPRIETIES section of the Laws, I see no > > reference to PPs or L90 Oversight? The > > authors brag in the Preface that cross- > > referencing in the 1997 Laws was made more > > explicit. > > > +=+ I am having some difficulty in discerning > exactly where Marvin is coming from. More to the point is where I am going to, which you saw fit not to quote. > So I am > disinclined at this moment to comment on > his theme. However, I think it worth a reminder > that the contents of 'Chapter VII - Proprieties' > are Laws. They come within the statement > at the front of the book that says: "The Laws > are designed to define correct procedure". Same paragraph: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." C&E offenses are not a concern of the Laws, other than those that must be treated under L91. Using PPs for these offenses is not justifiable. It's a lazy way to treat them, no paperwork required, making its popularity understandable. It also provides a feeling of power and control that may be gratifying to some types. > Also that the extended cross-referencing is > not said to be exhaustive; Law 90 can perhaps > be seen to cross-reference in some degree to > every other Law. I don't see that. David has told me it applies to every other law. If so, why itemize typical procedural offenses in L90B? With eight sample offenses listed, isn't it strange that not one was included for C&E offenses such as those given PPs in Anaheim? Rubber bridge is the parent of duplicate bridge, and its principles should be followed whenever possible. The duplicate laws were adopted from the rubber bridge laws, changing only what was necessary for duplicate. This included penalties for violating the procedures peculiar to duplicate, such as those in L90B. The rubber bridge Laws have a section entitled *Alternative Club Laws* that can be used when there is an Arbiter (equivalent to a TD) available. All the Laws that are affected by an Arbiter's presence are listed, with applicable changes/additions. There is nothing added concerning PPs for C&E offenses. Rightly so, as it is inconceivable that offenses of this nature would affect the score sheet. They are handled outside the game, not in the game (other than when a player is tossed out on his ear, of course). Can it be imagined that an Arbiter would say, "I'm deducting 100 points from your score to teach you a lesson"? That's where I'm coming from. 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 Jun 6 05:09:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55J66809612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 05:06:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f55J5wt09603 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 05:05:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA18145 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:04:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA13009 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:04:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106051904.PAA13009@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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: "Volker R. Walther" > 2.) You should not ask about any bid if the answer will have no affect > to your bidding. (Similar words in British and German regulations.) The problem with the above, as others have noticed, is that asking then implies something about your hand. This will be true of any regulation that makes whether you ask a question or not depend on the hand you hold. What about instead a regulation that depends only on the auction? For example, "You should not ask about any bid if, in the actual auction with the information already known, it is highly unlikely that you would need more information before the auction ends. The decision as to whether you might need more information should be based on all hands you are likely to hold, not on the actual hand you hold on this particular deal." This sort of regulation -- and I am not claiming the wording is perfect -- implies that you would nearly always ask about an alerted bid on the first round of the auction but seldom ask about an unalerted bid late in the auction. (Of course it's the intermediate cases that are hard!) The rule wouldn't solve all problems, but at least it puts the emphasis on _the auction so far_ and removes it from _the hand actually held_. That has to reduce UI. As David S. has rightly pointed out, the rules about asking are intimately tied to the alert rules. In jurisdictions where alerts are required in routine auctions, a rule such as "often ask about alerts" or "always ask" will be less useful than in jurisdictions where alerts are rarer. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 06:39:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55KZw119030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:35:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f55KZnt19021 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 06:35:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55Dka201050 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:46:36 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: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:31:18 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01060513463601.01029@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 05 Jun 2001, Claire LeBlanc or Robert Nordgren wrote: > At 01:31 PM 6/1/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the > >words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner > >in which a question is asked or a reply given". > > I think especially in ACBL land that the enforcement of having 2 CC's > easily available needs to get enforced first before we start to open up L16 > and making some questions non UI, a Question is no matter how you turn > means to get information across that is > > Not thru the bids/calls made or the cards played. Actually, I would suggest that the CC regulation itself should make certain questions non-UI. Any UI transmitted as a direct result of an opponent's infraction should not be subject to the same restrictions. If you could look unobtrusively at a CC and pass no UI, then you should not be worse off because of the opponents' lack of a properly completed and placed CC. This principle does exist in one other situation; if an opponent does not make a skip-bid warning, you cannot lose your right to the 10-second pause that would have been required. > A prepared "defender" reads thru the CC on what any 1st action bid will > mean and will not get surprised when any potential alerts comes up at that > early stage of the bidding. Agreed; the EBU regulation that you are expected to know your opponents' basic system would be useful elsewhere. The ACBL's rule for announcing NT ranges helps, although people do still ask when the range is 15-17. 1C alerted leads to common questions because it could be Precision, or normal but possibly short. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 08:00:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55LvTu29520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:57:29 +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 f55LvJt29510 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:57:20 +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 f55Lu9688545 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 17:56:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@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, 05 Jun 2001 17:56:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B1BCB45.DA0E2529@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@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 01:54 PM 6/4/01, Herman wrote: >It might seem strange to start disagreeing with a post in >which Eric states he agrees mwith me, but then I've never >been easiy satisfied : This is what makes BLML so much fun. No matter how much we superficially appear to agree on things, we can always manage to ferret out those points of disagreement. Serious, what Herman is doing here is returning the discussion of claims to some of the original points of debate from the particulars of the sub-thread in which we somehow found ourselves in agreement. >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 05:28 AM 6/3/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >The making of the claim in this situation is stupid. Any > > >fool can see that play is not over yet. That it is careless > > >to claim at this stage, since you are going to suffer the > > >worst of all normal lines. > > > > > >But this player has claimed nevertheless. > > > > Quite so. It doesn't matter whether the fact or manner of the claim > > was reasonable, careless, stupid or irrational. It has been made, and > > why it was made as it was does not affect how we deal with it. > >True, except for one thing, and it is something that we need >to add, or we shall see people disagreeing with the >principle for lack of proper wording : >The reason why it was made will shed a big light on the >state of mind of the player at the time he was claiming, and >this state of mind IS important in how we deal with the >claim. What matters is that he claimed, and whatever statement (if any) he made in doing so. IMO, we can follow L70 completely without knowing any more than that. I see nothing in L70 that refers to the claimer's state of mind. Herman (and others) argue that we can read such a reference into the single word "equitably" in L70A, but I see no reason to make such an assumption, nor any reason to want to, as it certainly makes the problem of determining an appropriate result far more complex. > > >Now he can have > > >two different reasons for doing so. Either he can have a > > >false picture of the hand, something "stupid to the point of > > >irrational". Such a player shall be deemed to play in the > > >same manner. > > > > Right again. If he claims 8 tricks from a heart suit of AKQJ5432 > > opposite a void, perhaps he simply failed to consider that the suit > > might be 5-0 (stupid), or perhaps he thought that there are only 12 > > hearts in a bridge deck (irrational), but it doesn't matter. > >Yes it does. If he failed to count, we might allow him to >count later (in the fictitious play). If he thinks there >are only 12 hearts, then he shall continue to think so. Of >course that second is an impossibility, but there are other >examples, where that distinction becomes important. But even if he did think there were only 12 hearts in the deck, it wouldn't matter, because that is irrational, so a line based on it is irrational, and the law says we do not consider irrational lines, even if we have reason to believe that a particular declarer might have taken them. >Consider a claim on : > >AQT864 KJ9753 >2 65 >AK32 QJ45 >A2 K > >Playing six spades on a trump lead, declarer claims 13 >tricks, immediately > >Now if this is : >a) because he believes he can jettison his heart on >something, then we shall allow him (in fictitious play) to >notice that in fact this is impossible, and we shall award >12 tricks. We should not try and invent strange lines that >might lead to 13 tricks and have declarer go down. >but : >b) because he has dropped his singleton heart on the floor, >then we shall not allow him to notice that, but force him >(in fictitious play), to ruff a heart, allow the revoke to >become established, make 13 tricks and pay a 2-trick >penalty. > >So the reason why he was wrong is important in the ruling ! Good example; wrong conclusion. If he has dropped his singleton heart on the floor, the line in (b) is effectively based on the assumption that he is playing the deal with a 12-card hand. That is every bit as irrational as assuming that the deck contains 12 hearts, albeit much more likely to actually be true. But in neither example does it matter whether it's true; the law says that if it's irrational we don't consider it. I suppose one could argue that not knowing how many cards you have is merely stupid, not irrational, but I don't see an argument for it that wouldn't also apply to not knowing how many hearts there are. >(I realize that not everyone is convinced that the ruling in >b is the correct one, but I believe it is nothing but >equitable). To Herman -- and to me, and in general -- equity is like pornography; we naturally define it as, "I can't describe it exactly, but I know it when I see it." Herman's view of L70 would be 100% correct and appropriate if L70A were the entirety of L70. But in context, we cannot use that definition of equity to interpret "equitably" in L70A in such a way as to contradict words in the rest of L70, which is what those who are placing too much emphasis on "equity" in adjudicating claims are doing. The law tells us specifically we must consider "'normal'" lines and disregard "irrational" ones, and it is wrong to disregard that specific directive on the grounds that L70A somehow tells us to. IOW, we must read "as equitably as possible" in L70A to mean "as equitably as possible given the rest of L70" rather than as "as equitably as possible regardless of the rest of L70". > > >Or the player can have had a lapse of concentration, and > > >have claimed without considering. I call that a hasty > > >claim, and it sometimes happens. > > >This is not stupid (it is careless) and it is not > > >irrational, even if we might call it that because no > > >rational person would do it. > > > > Semantics here. If "no rational person would do it" it is irrational > > by definition. But rational people have lapses in concentration, do > > things without considering, or act too hastily all the time. > > > > >But it is not evidence that the player would play > > >irrationally afterwards. > > > > Agreed. I have argued previously that there is no correlation between > > a tendency to claim stupidly and a tendency to play stupidly. But even > > if there were, it would not affect the manner in which the law requires > > us to adjudicate. > >I believe that there sometimes is a correlation, and that >the law requires us to adjudicate a "stupid play" if that >correlation does exist. >I also believe that the correlation is absent in the cases >that prompted these threads. I believe that the law says to consider stupid plays but not to consider irrational ones regardless of whether or not we believe that the stupidity or irrationality of the claim correlates with how the hand might have been played out. > > >He shall be deemed to play equally > > >hasty and carelessly, but in many examples, some people > > >would also ascribe irrational lines to the claimer. > > > > I doubt it, since to do so would be in clear contradiction to the > > law. I suspect that Herman is thinking of "some people" who would > > ascribe lines to the claimer which he considers irrational but they do > > not. The particular ax which I have been grinding here for some time > > is that if we persist in the belief that what is irrational depends on > > the class of player involved, such differences can only be entirely > > matters of personal opinion, and can never be resolved. > >I do not believe that this is what "some people" believe. >"Let him revoke, since that is what he said he would do" is >a quote that springs to mind. I don't think the person who >said that thought that revoking was not irrational. The people who said that do not think that revoking isn't irrational. Their argument -- and it is a good one, although IMO the jury is still out as to whether they're right -- is that the distinction between stupid and irrational affects the lines we consider not from the point of the claim, but rather from the point at which the claim statement can no longer be followed (which makes no difference when there has been no stated line, as in most of our examples). They would let him revoke not because it would be rational to revoke, but because he said he would revoke. That view is that the claim can only "break down" when the claim statement can no longer be followed, so until that happens we have nothing to adjudicate. > > >The two are quite distinct. The claim is stupid, but for > > >the lines chosen afterwards we need not include the "stupid" > > >ones into the normal ones. > > > > Up to this point, I believe Herman and I have been in substantive > > agreement, but here we differ. IMO, the law says that we must include > > the stupid lines, but not the irrational ones, which, as Herman admits > > in his first sentence, are not the same thing at all. > >The word "stupid" does not appear in the law book, so it is >impossible to say that stupid lines can or cannot be >included. My fault here. A few messages ago I made the point that what Herman called "stupid to the point of irrationality" was synonymous with "irrational". Since then, I have been using the word "stupid" as shorthand for "careless or irrational (for the class of player involved), but not irrational". Apparently that wasn't clear. I hope it now is, and shall continue to so use it. > > In the AKQJ5432 opposite void case, we do not allow declarer to > > "rethink" his stupidity in having overlooked the possibility of a 5-0 > > break *until* he cashes the first round, when the overlooked > > possibility is revealed as fact, and it becomes irrational not to > > notice it. We do not "force" him to continue the suit until he loses > > to the 10 as though we presume that he doesn't know that there are 13 > > hearts in the deck -- even if we have reason to believe that he really > > might not know that there are 13 hearts in the deck. > >We are in agreement on the ruling, but not on the principle. >If we find that declarer claimed because he overlooked the >possibility of a 5-0 break, then we should decide when >claimer would have thought of the possibility in his >(fictitious) play. >This could be (and I'm not saying that it shall always be) >before playing a single further card, which is earlier than >what you are stating, Eric. Herman argues that it might be irrational not to consider the effect of a 5-0 break before playing a card, notwithstanding that declarer didn't consider it when claiming. I argue that that is merely stupid, but that it becomes irrational not to consider the 5-0 break once you see it in front of you. We both disagree with the view that it remains merely stupid, not irrational, beyond that point, which is the view held by those who would force declarer to lose to the H10. >When it is clear that a player has claimed WITHOUT making a >plan of the play, then we do not assume that claimer will >also play without making such a plan. It is IMO >inconceivable that any player plays off cards without >looking at all 26 of them at least once. IMO it is no more inconceivable than that a player claims without looking at all 26 of them at least once, or that, having looked at them, he will have seen something different if he was planning to claim than he would have seen if he was planning to play on. The point, though, is that when it is clear that a player has claimed without making a plan of the play, we follow L70 to determine the outcome. L70 tells us only to disregard irrational lines. It neither tells us nor permits us to disregard rational lines which we know the declarer would not have included in his plan of play had he made one. What's more, if Herman wins this one, and the WBFLC decrees that we must ignore lines that we know declarer would not have considered had he considered at all, I will argue that we can never know for sure what those are, and must give the benefit of the doubt to NOS, so it doesn't matter. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 09:16:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55ND1f02779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:13:01 +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-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 f55NCqt02766 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157PzC-0005Bo-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:11:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:04:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > I do not approve of PPs for odd occurrences, but they are necessary >for pairs that do things wrong again and again. > In the case of one of the clubs I direct at; 1. 14 and 12 cards 2. Failing to number the traveller (a pain when computer scoring) 3. Failing to score on the correct line on the traveller Just for good measure we publish all the PPs at the bottom of the score sheet. -- Steve Wright -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 09:16:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f55ND4w02781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:13:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f55NCtt02773 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:12:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157PzH-000JKr-0C for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:11:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:43:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > TDs are expected to use commonsense, and expected to be trained to do >so, and to apply judgement. Certainly if South moves a board to the >next table, a PP for not leaving North to do it per L8A2 would be very >poor directing. In one of the clubs I direct, as a playing TD I always sit South so that I can watch the room. Table one and the highest numbered table are at the opposite corners of the room. I (South) always move the boards (before the end of the round) by walking past slow tables and telling them to get a move on. If over-zealous PPs were the norm I'd have to give myself two PPs per round :-) -- Steve Wright -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 11:07:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5616mZ06985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:06:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5616et06981 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:06:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157RlM-000Ecd-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:05:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:03:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 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 , Steve Wright writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> >> I do not approve of PPs for odd occurrences, but they are necessary >>for pairs that do things wrong again and again. >> >In the case of one of the clubs I direct at; >1. 14 and 12 cards this one I regularly do, and agree with. You can get a "2 per" if the new table doesn't count them :)) >2. Failing to number the traveller (a pain when computer scoring) I'm not sure that's a problem - but we always score top line so you know who played it first so you know which board set. With pre-numbered travellers I think you have a case. (I threw 1000 pre-numbered travellers away, at the Acol last week - because they cause far more trouble than they're worth.) >3. Failing to score on the correct line on the traveller see above. 4) Loud discussion, causing a pair to lose a board. > >Just for good measure we publish all the PPs at the bottom of the score >sheet. I announce the fines for the room to hear - that works just as well -- 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 Jun 6 11:29:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f561T3F07667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:29:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f561Stt07659 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:28:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157S77-0007vr-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:28:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:04:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Meeting people 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 David Stevenson writes > > I seem to be travelling around a bit this year! I do hope to see as >many as possible of my RGB, AGB and RGBO friends. Please come and have >a chat if you and I are at the same venue. > > Apart from wandering around England and Wales as usual, I shall be in: > >Jun 8-10 Amsterdam, Netherlands, directing >Jun 16-17 Copenhagen, Denmark, directing and playing >Jun 25-27 Hospital for more tests [yuk!] >Jul 28- 5 Skovde, Sweden, directing >Aug 31- 5 ??????, Italy, tutor on EBL director's course [STC] >Oct 20- 2 Bali, appeals committee >Nov 18-27 Las Vegas, USA, playing [STC] Sorry, I thought STC was a normal abbreviation, but judging by the emails I have had asking me .... It stands for Subject To Confirmation. The EBL director's course had not be confirmed to happen last I heard, and for Las Vegas I have no partner: while I hope to go I would not say it was certain. -- 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 Jun 6 11:29:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f561T5W07668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:29:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f561Sut07660 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:28:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157S7B-0007vm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:28:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:26:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c0ed65$c0111a40$07407bd5@dodona> <002901c0edea$0b361dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002901c0edea$0b361dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Same paragraph: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment >for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." C&E offenses >are not a concern of the Laws, other than those that must be treated >under L91. Using PPs for these offenses is not justifiable. It's a >lazy way to treat them, no paperwork required, making its popularity >understandable. It also provides a feeling of power and control that >may be gratifying to some types. What I cannot understand is why you keep saying things like this, and then complain about the use of PPs in cases which are not C&E, which are not disciplinary. Of course, as has been pointed out a few times before, your [and some other people's] presumption that the word primarily means absolutely and with no exceptions ever in this lifetime is a little obscure! The examples from Anaheim where PPs are given were none of them C&E- type offences: they were given for violations of procedure. >> Also that the extended cross-referencing is >> not said to be exhaustive; Law 90 can perhaps >> be seen to cross-reference in some degree to >> every other Law. > >I don't see that. David has told me it applies to every other law. >If so, why itemize typical procedural offenses in L90B? With eight >sample offenses listed, isn't it strange that not one was included >for C&E offenses such as those given PPs in Anaheim? No, why should it be strange? Of course, you keep talking about C&E offences, when there were none in the cases to which you refer. But your presumption that L90A does not mean what L90A says is not a tenable position. >Rubber bridge is the parent of duplicate bridge, and its principles >should be followed whenever possible. Why? It is a different game, and this seems another completely untenable position. -- 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 Jun 6 11:52:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f561q2h08314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:52:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f561ptt08308 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:51:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.102]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010606015048.RCJG283.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:50:48 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01c0ee2b$c1205560$6608ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 02:55:24 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sounds like bad table numbering to me :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 > In article , David Stevenson > writes > > TDs are expected to use commonsense, and expected to be trained to do > >so, and to apply judgement. Certainly if South moves a board to the > >next table, a PP for not leaving North to do it per L8A2 would be very > >poor directing. > > In one of the clubs I direct, as a playing TD I always sit South so that > I can watch the room. Table one and the highest numbered table are at > the opposite corners of the room. I (South) always move the boards > (before the end of the round) by walking past slow tables and telling > them to get a move on. If over-zealous PPs were the norm I'd have to > give myself two PPs per round :-) > -- > Steve Wright > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 13:17:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f563GWK15926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:16:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f237.law9.hotmail.com [64.4.9.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f563GOt15894 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 5 Jun 2001 20:15:12 -0700 Received: from 62.253.64.4 by lw9fd.law9.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:15:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [62.253.64.4] From: "Ian Kidger" To: grabiner@math.la.asu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:15:12 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jun 2001 03:15:12.0629 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6541A50:01C0EE36] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robert Nordgren wrote: (snip) > >A prepared "defender" reads thru the CC on what any 1st action bid will > >mean and will not get surprised when any potential alerts comes up at > >that early stage of the bidding. > David Grabiner wrote: > (snip) > >Agreed; the EBU regulation that you are expected to know your opponents' >basic system would be useful elsewhere. The ACBL's rule for announcing NT >ranges helps, although people do still ask when the range is 15-17. 1C >alerted leads to common questions because it could be Precision, or normal >but possibly short. > I've played at a couple of ACBL Nationals and play the occasional EBU event and I'd make the following observations: 1. Robert is right about his "prepared defender" comments. More people look at your convention card in EBU events for, I think, two main reasons. Firstly, you are more likely to have a CC to examine; second, the diversity of basic systems is far higher in EBU events than in the ACBL. I'd make an uneducated estimate that 90%+ of the pairs I've faced at ACBL Nationals play some variant of 5 card Majors and 15-17 NT and assume you play the same. 2. The ACBL CC is easy to fill out with its checkboxes, but a pig to try to read more than six inches from your face. Picking up a CC and studying it can pass as much UI as asking a question. The EBU20A CC takes a little more completing, but the front page gives details of 'Basic System', 'Things opponents should note about the system' and '1NT range and 2C response'. These sections are uncluttered and can be read easily from a CC sitting on the table. I prefer the EBU alerting regs, which have the advantage of simplicity DWS has referred to on many occasions. I *much* prefer the EBU attitude to asking about alerts. I'm sorry to say that I've had a number of experiences at NABCs where opponents have asked the most blatant UI creating questions, followed by partner taking the bait. The TDs have sorted things out, but what I found disappointing was the lack of understanding about how much UI can be transmitted in the way questions are framed. My partner, also from the UK, was threatened with a ZT penalty in a KO match when, after the third or fourth UI-laden question, asked LHO if RHOs question was for takeout. (I don't condone the comment but understood the frustration behind it). My limited experience suggests a lot less UI gets transmitted, and more importantly, *used* in EBU events. Ian Kidger Reading, UK Despite the above mini-rant I'm looking forward to the Toronto NABC in July :) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 6 14:13:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f564Cu725166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f564Cnt25136 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:12:49 +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 OAA21584 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:17:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 06 Jun 2001 14:02:53 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:09:12 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/06/2001 02:07:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson enquired about Australian (ABF) alerting regulations: [big snip] >But to introduce a regulation that says the >next player may ask without the normal risks >so long as the call is alerted would get rid >of a lot of UI problems. > > It would work better in the ACBL than in >England/Wales. Our alerting process is simpler, >which has plusses and minusses: one of the >minusses, which people from elsewhere tend to >scoff at a lot is that certain calls are usually >alertable whatever their meaning, Partly to eliminate unnecessary alerts, and partly to reduce the incidence of alerting a confused partner, certain calls are ruled by the ABF to be *self-alerting*. All doubles, redoubles, cuebids and calls above 3NT *may not* be alerted. [As a consequence of this policy, a pair is not permitted to request their opponents to never alert.] The ABF requires a declaring side which has perpetrated one or more self-alerting calls to ask the defending side before the opening lead, "Do you want an explanation of the auction?" {I enjoy making obscure calls; my partner once asked the opponents for an explanation of my auction.} >and as a result players often do not ask such >calls. I do not think this regulation would >help, or even be workable in such cases. > > But overall I think the regulation is workable. >It seems legal so long as we do not say UI does >not exist - after all, inflexion of voice, words >used in asking questions and all such things do >and would still provide UI. > > Not only do I think it workable, but I am >fairly sure it is in use somewhere - is it >Australia? The ABF permits a player to ask a question in a "Please explain?" format about any alerted or self-alerted call, provided that the player does so at her first opportunity. If that time is past, a player still has the right to ask for an explanation of the entire auction. 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 Jun 6 17:43:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f567gT104465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:42:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f567gLt04459 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:42:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21132 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 07:41:06 GMT Message-ID: <3B1DDE95.E294495A@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 09:41:09 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <200106051904.PAA13009@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner a écrit : > > > From: "Volker R. Walther" > > 2.) You should not ask about any bid if the answer will have no affect > > to your bidding. > (Similar words in British and German regulations.) > > The problem with the above, as others have noticed, is that asking then > implies something about your hand. This will be true of any regulation > that makes whether you ask a question or not depend on the hand you > hold. > i concur to hate a regulation that compels a player to give the opponents AI about the hand he holds every time an alert card is exhibited by his opponents. jp rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 20:28:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56ARFC07784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:27:15 +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-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 f56AR4t07776 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:27:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157aYE-0001yG-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:28:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 03:02:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus * Lester David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo EL, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Tommy Sandsmark * Storepus, Lillepus, Snoppen Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Bruce Small * Penny, MaxFlemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac, Flash David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, and Nanki Poo has been firmly told how to spell Schrodinger! Mind you, someone has suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 6 21:16:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56BGKx08771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:16:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56BGCt08763 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:16:13 +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 NAA24911; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:11:29 +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 NAA27335; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:14:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010606131909.00862bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 13:19:09 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] new kind of 'could have known' ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Many recent threads revolved around the notion of 'possibly-intentional' breakings of law, covered by L23 and cross references to it in several laws, and by Law 72BA . I would like to express concern about the fact that unexpected cases may need to be covered by said Laws. In particular, L72B1 and B2 are too vague to be usefully invoked. This is a recent live case. South's hand : S void / H KJ1098xx / D KQJ10x / C x Barring strong action from partner, you would be happy to be allowed to play 4H, possibly doubled, either as a make or as a good sacrifice. Of course, the opponents will not be kind enough to oblige. However ... Holding this hand, South opened OOT with 1H. North was dealer. The OOOT was rejected, North passed perforce, East made his normal 1C bid, then South bid 4H. West doubled ('tranferable values' ). Now, East, with : Axxx / x / Axx / KJ10xx decided that South was making the usual gamble-after-barring-partner, and passed the double. The contract went 1 down, with 5C an easy make (6 wins double-dummy). The most common contract was 5HX-2. 4HX-1 earns South 80%. I wouldn't say South took a profit from barring partner - BTW North wouldn't have acted in any normal sequence - but I can't avoid the feeling that South 'could have known' that the OOOT and subsequent 4H bid would make the opponents more prone to let him play there, doubled or not according to the repartition of HCP. And so it proved to be. I am even more suspicious from the fact that he opened 1H. If he had, in a burst of enthusiasm, opened 4H, then repeated his 4H bid over 1C, my suspicions would be quite mild, but it was clearly the 1H-4H combination that made East pass, and South 'could have known' it. Of course, nobody can prove it was made 'on purpose', but the same is true of every L72B1 case. South might argue that it was not his combination of actions that provoked the abnormal final contract, but East's final pass. BTA East might argue that, without the 1H-4H combination, this would not have happened. In other words, we are speaking of subsequent vs consequent. But is this distinction graftable onto L72 ? My question is : would you apply L72B1 here ? Thank you for your help, 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 Jun 6 22:17:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56CGmi15197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:16:48 +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-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 f56CGdt15152 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:16:40 +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 f56CFU640738 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 08:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010606075101.00b1bd00@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, 06 Jun 2001 08:15:59 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:58 PM 6/4/01, Richard wrote: > > Suppose we have a regulation that after an alerted call, the next > > player *must* ask the meaning. Then the fact that he has asked a > > question does not provide any information to partner. > >Wouldn't it just be easier to replace all Alerts followed by >mandotory requests for explanations with Announcements? This seems obvious. >For what its worth, I have long advocated that online bridge should >adopt just this sort of system. That might be a good idea -- for on-line bridge. But it would be a disaster for ordinary at-the-table bridge. Is there any one of us who has never heard an alert, would have liked to know the meaning of the call, but declined to ask because we felt that the opponents might not be 100% on the same wavelength, and that allowing them to answer openly would, in the long run, help them more than it would help us? One could argue that our system of laws, rulings and appeals protects us against such concerns. That might be true if that system worked 100% flawlessly and efficiently, and if every player had complete confidence in it, but would be ignoring the realities of life. Under today's rules, it is considered (at least in the ACBL) a grievous offense to volunteer an explanation of partner's alert unasked. Such new rules would make what are now grievous offenses mandatory actions. That should suggest that perhaps it's not a very good idea, or, at the very least, that a large number of players might not consider it so. In addition, it would exacerbate current (IMO severe) problems with slow play. I know several players locally (I am one of them) who already play a lot less duplicate than they otherwise might because they are not willing to commit four hours to playing 26 deals, which they can easily do in under an hour and a half with their friends at home. 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 Jun 6 23:04:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56D4Td27600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:04:29 +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 f56D4Kt27589 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:04:21 +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 f56D3B499970 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:03:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010606082656.00b11590@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, 06 Jun 2001 09:03:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <000001c0edd2$553ab600$e340193f@mike> References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604105252.00b0db00@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 05:29 PM 6/4/01, mike wrote: >If the topic is now how to change the law could >someone review for me how the law read in the >sixties or seventies when the Bridge World's >Appeals Commitee pamphlets were published? IIRC, >a distinction was drawn between UI from proper and >improper procedure. In this case, asking correctly >would impose a burden on partner to avoid a 25% >suggested action but allowing normal (50%) >actions. Asking improperly (eg. "does that show >clubs?") brings something like current LA rules >into play. This always seemed a reasonable >distinction but I don't know any of the history >behind it or subsequent changes. Please, Grattan, >others. I find three references to asking questions in the 1963 edition of TFLB: L40e: "During the auction a player may request an explanation of a conventional call made by an opponent. The inquiry may be made only by the player whose turn it is to call... Explanations may be given only by the player whose partner made the conventional call..." "VII.II. The following acts should be carefully avoided and are considered breaches of ethics when committed intentionally: a. A remark, question, gesture or mannerism which might convey information to partner or might mislead an opponent. "VII.III. A player should refrain from:... c. Volunteering information that should be given only in response to a question." L16, "Unauthorized Information", made no reference to questions or replies. In the ACBL at that time, the law was interpreted to mean that you could question the opponents' auction at will but at your own risk; a reply to a question, correct or not, was considered AI to partner. Giving misinformation, unless done deliberately, was not an infraction. We've come a long way, baby. Edgar Kaplan, as both an administrator and an editorialist (The Bridge World), campaigned vigorously in the 60s and 70s to change the laws regarding UI and MI to something rather similar to what we have now, and his ideas were incorporated into the 1975 revision of TFLB. I suspect that the writings Mike refers to came shortly after these rather radical changes, when the issue of how to interpret them was still very much unsettled. 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 Jun 6 23:15:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56DFMf28162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:15:22 +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-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 f56DFFt28153 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:15:16 +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 f56DE5u12885 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:14:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@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, 06 Jun 2001 09:14:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: References: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$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 09:14 PM 6/4/01, David wrote: >Richard Willey writes > > >Wouldn't it just be easier to replace all Alerts followed by > >mandotory requests for explanations with Announcements? > >For what its worth, I have long advocated that online bridge should > >adopt just this sort of system. > > I do not think this is quite so correct as it sounds. It is easier >for someone to understand an answer if they have asked a question. > > Announcements are fine for really simple stuff. But the moment you >get to something as complex as the meaning of 1S 2D X I think you need a >question as well as an answer otherwise there will be a lot of >confusion. David's argument has no relevance to the ACBL, where it is an official policy/guideline that the *only* proper form for an initial request for an explanation is, "Please explain." 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 Jun 6 23:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56DrWC29805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:53:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56DrOt29797 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:53:25 +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 PAA11397; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:48:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA27482; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:52:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010606155621.007d33e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:56:21 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: What beginners do [was Re: [BLML] Irrational claim] In-Reply-To: <200106022326.TAA20958@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:26 2/06/01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> We would say, "We know Mrs. Guggenheim might well make this completely >> irrational play at the table, ... > >(Very old message of Eric's.) > >Could someone refresh my memory about Mrs. Guggenheim? She makes _bad_ >plays of course: neglects obvious safety plays, draws trumps when she >should be ruffing losers, can't figure out which suit to set up first, >doesn't know about avoidance plays, etc. But does she make _irrational_ >plays? She most certainly does not play low cards in a suit before high >ones. AG : no, she doesn't. The poor soul (Mollo's words) is too concentrated on her game to be irrational. She simply makes the same mistakes again and again. And indeed I can't imagine her playing a suit bottom up. But I don't think one should consider 'inferior play' to be 'Mrs Guggenheim's play'. An example : AKJxx Qxxx Axx x Axx Kxxx xx xxxx Against 4S, North leads AC, KC, QC (South doesn't follow to that one). West ruffs. West plays a round of spades. Everybody follows. Now the good player plays AH, H ruffed, D to A, H ruffed *with the queen*. The bad player plays AH, H ruffed, D to A, H ruffed small, risking the overruff. Mrs Guggenheim plays two more trumps, then sees she can't ruff twice. In a 'consider the most unfavourable plausible result' problem, you may pretend West will play like the bad player ; you may *not* pretend he will play like Mrs Guggenheim, unless perhaps West *is* Mrs Guggenheim. Or, you may pretend West will forget to make a safety play in a suit like AKJ9xx facing xx (low from both hands for 5 tricks), but you may not pretend he will forget to play low in a suit like AKxxxx facing xx with no entry. Mrs Guggenheim would forget (er, not think, because she never knew). >Which of Mollo's characters is she most like? Walter the Walrus? AG : I'd say Timothy the Toucan. Walter has guidelines, albeit bad ones. Timothy hasn't. But the closest character is probably Bertrand Romanet's Juliette, who has been said to 'know only one line of play : draw trumps first, then ruff with dummy's remaining trumps - that is, if there are any'. 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 Jun 7 00:10:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56EA5600657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:10:05 +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 f56E9ut00645 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:09:57 +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 QAA16170; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:05:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA10934; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:08:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010606161242.00875100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 16:12:42 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Cc: , In-Reply-To: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:08 4/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Case 13 was a UI (Hesitation Blackwood) violation that resulted in >an adjusted score. The AC considered a PP, but "declined to do so >due to the lack of screening, the timing of the Director call, and >the lack of solid evidence confirming the disputed hesitation." AG : this is illogical, and I'd like to be more virulent. Either the AC is convinced there was UI and it was used, and a PP is appropriate ; or it isn't, and it shouldn't correct the score. Doubt as a mitigating circumstance ? Not for me ! >Rich, Grattan, and others thought that a PP was in order, Grattan >writing "..there should be a price on brazen impropriety." Reading >the PROPRIETIES section of the Laws, I see no reference to PPs or >L90 Oversight? The authors brag in the Preface that >cross-referencing in the 1997 Laws was made more explicit. The answer has been given before on blml : since L73F1 provides for adjusted scores, L90B7 applies. As for the case where there is no influence on the score of the deal, there is the word 'must' in L73C, and the consequnce of this verb as given in the prolegomena. 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 Thu Jun 7 00:41:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56EfGc09087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:41:16 +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 f56Ef8t09079 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:41:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-161.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.161]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f56Edqc28799 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:39:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:57:21 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@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 01:54 PM 6/4/01, Herman wrote: > > >It might seem strange to start disagreeing with a post in > >which Eric states he agrees mwith me, but then I've never > >been easiy satisfied : > > This is what makes BLML so much fun. No matter how much we > superficially appear to agree on things, we can always manage to ferret > out those points of disagreement. Serious, what Herman is doing here > is returning the discussion of claims to some of the original points of > debate from the particulars of the sub-thread in which we somehow found > ourselves in agreement. > Isn't that what makes this all so worth-while ! I love it ! > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > > At 05:28 AM 6/3/01, Herman wrote: > > > > > > >The making of the claim in this situation is stupid. Any > > > >fool can see that play is not over yet. That it is careless > > > >to claim at this stage, since you are going to suffer the > > > >worst of all normal lines. > > > > > > > >But this player has claimed nevertheless. > > > > > > Quite so. It doesn't matter whether the fact or manner of the claim > > > was reasonable, careless, stupid or irrational. It has been made, and > > > why it was made as it was does not affect how we deal with it. > > > >True, except for one thing, and it is something that we need > >to add, or we shall see people disagreeing with the > >principle for lack of proper wording : > >The reason why it was made will shed a big light on the > >state of mind of the player at the time he was claiming, and > >this state of mind IS important in how we deal with the > >claim. > > What matters is that he claimed, and whatever statement (if any) he > made in doing so. IMO, we can follow L70 completely without knowing > any more than that. I see nothing in L70 that refers to the claimer's > state of mind. Herman (and others) argue that we can read such a > reference into the single word "equitably" in L70A, but I see no reason > to make such an assumption, nor any reason to want to, as it certainly > makes the problem of determining an appropriate result far more complex. > I have never said it was not complex, but as I read it, certainly "equitable" includes the players' state of mind. > > > >Now he can have > > > >two different reasons for doing so. Either he can have a > > > >false picture of the hand, something "stupid to the point of > > > >irrational". Such a player shall be deemed to play in the > > > >same manner. > > > > > > Right again. If he claims 8 tricks from a heart suit of AKQJ5432 > > > opposite a void, perhaps he simply failed to consider that the suit > > > might be 5-0 (stupid), or perhaps he thought that there are only 12 > > > hearts in a bridge deck (irrational), but it doesn't matter. > > > >Yes it does. If he failed to count, we might allow him to > >count later (in the fictitious play). If he thinks there > >are only 12 hearts, then he shall continue to think so. Of > >course that second is an impossibility, but there are other > >examples, where that distinction becomes important. > > But even if he did think there were only 12 hearts in the deck, it > wouldn't matter, because that is irrational, so a line based on it is > irrational, and the law says we do not consider irrational lines, even > if we have reason to believe that a particular declarer might have > taken them. > I really don't think that any line can be rational or irrational "on its own", and I don't mean "for the class of player involved". Forgetting to draw trumps when claiming without having drawn any is irrational, while forgetting to do the same because you have miscounted is merely careless. Same line, but different "frame of mind", and different judgment on the rationality of it. > >Consider a claim on : > > > >AQT864 KJ9753 > >2 65 > >AK32 QJ45 > >A2 K > > > >Playing six spades on a trump lead, declarer claims 13 > >tricks, immediately > > > >Now if this is : > >a) because he believes he can jettison his heart on > >something, then we shall allow him (in fictitious play) to > >notice that in fact this is impossible, and we shall award > >12 tricks. We should not try and invent strange lines that > >might lead to 13 tricks and have declarer go down. > >but : > >b) because he has dropped his singleton heart on the floor, > >then we shall not allow him to notice that, but force him > >(in fictitious play), to ruff a heart, allow the revoke to > >become established, make 13 tricks and pay a 2-trick > >penalty. > > > >So the reason why he was wrong is important in the ruling ! > > Good example; wrong conclusion. If he has dropped his singleton heart > on the floor, the line in (b) is effectively based on the assumption > that he is playing the deal with a 12-card hand. That is every bit as > irrational as assuming that the deck contains 12 hearts, albeit much > more likely to actually be true. But in neither example does it matter > whether it's true; the law says that if it's irrational we don't > consider it. > But is it irrational to "ruff" a heart when you have none in hand ? I don't believe so. So the line is not irrational at all ! I believe that L70A instructs us to rule "as if play had continued", with doubt against claimer. And in this case claimer would have ruffed and allowed the revoke to be established (at least with a reasonable degree of likelihood to rule this way). > I suppose one could argue that not knowing how many cards you have is > merely stupid, not irrational, but I don't see an argument for it that > wouldn't also apply to not knowing how many hearts there are. > He is not "not knowing how many cards he has". He is "forgetting to check if he really holds the number he is supposed to be having". That is quite a degree different from knowing that there are 13 hearts. > >(I realize that not everyone is convinced that the ruling in > >b is the correct one, but I believe it is nothing but > >equitable). > > To Herman -- and to me, and in general -- equity is like pornography; > we naturally define it as, "I can't describe it exactly, but I know it > when I see it." Herman's view of L70 would be 100% correct and > appropriate if L70A were the entirety of L70. But in context, we > cannot use that definition of equity to interpret "equitably" in L70A > in such a way as to contradict words in the rest of L70, which is what > those who are placing too much emphasis on "equity" in adjudicating > claims are doing. The law tells us specifically we must consider > "'normal'" lines and disregard "irrational" ones, and it is wrong to > disregard that specific directive on the grounds that L70A somehow > tells us to. > Yes indeed, but you are wrong in judging the rationality "in vacuum". The rationality of actually performing a certain hypothetical action depends on other factors than a mere set of symbols on a piece of paper. > IOW, we must read "as equitably as possible" in L70A to mean "as > equitably as possible given the rest of L70" rather than as "as > equitably as possible regardless of the rest of L70". > I have no problems with that, but see above. > > > >Or the player can have had a lapse of concentration, and > > > >have claimed without considering. I call that a hasty > > > >claim, and it sometimes happens. > > > >This is not stupid (it is careless) and it is not > > > >irrational, even if we might call it that because no > > > >rational person would do it. > > > > > > Semantics here. If "no rational person would do it" it is irrational > > > by definition. But rational people have lapses in concentration, do > > > things without considering, or act too hastily all the time. > > > > > > >But it is not evidence that the player would play > > > >irrationally afterwards. > > > > > > Agreed. I have argued previously that there is no correlation between > > > a tendency to claim stupidly and a tendency to play stupidly. But even > > > if there were, it would not affect the manner in which the law requires > > > us to adjudicate. > > > >I believe that there sometimes is a correlation, and that > >the law requires us to adjudicate a "stupid play" if that > >correlation does exist. > >I also believe that the correlation is absent in the cases > >that prompted these threads. > > I believe that the law says to consider stupid plays but not to > consider irrational ones regardless of whether or not we believe that > the stupidity or irrationality of the claim correlates with how the > hand might have been played out. > I don't believe that we can determine stupidity or rationality "in vacuum". > > > >He shall be deemed to play equally > > > >hasty and carelessly, but in many examples, some people > > > >would also ascribe irrational lines to the claimer. > > > > > > I doubt it, since to do so would be in clear contradiction to the > > > law. I suspect that Herman is thinking of "some people" who would > > > ascribe lines to the claimer which he considers irrational but they do > > > not. The particular ax which I have been grinding here for some time > > > is that if we persist in the belief that what is irrational depends on > > > the class of player involved, such differences can only be entirely > > > matters of personal opinion, and can never be resolved. > > > >I do not believe that this is what "some people" believe. > >"Let him revoke, since that is what he said he would do" is > >a quote that springs to mind. I don't think the person who > >said that thought that revoking was not irrational. > > The people who said that do not think that revoking isn't > irrational. Their argument -- and it is a good one, although IMO the > jury is still out as to whether they're right -- is that the > distinction between stupid and irrational affects the lines we consider > not from the point of the claim, but rather from the point at which the > claim statement can no longer be followed (which makes no difference > when there has been no stated line, as in most of our examples). They > would let him revoke not because it would be rational to revoke, but > because he said he would revoke. That view is that the claim can only > "break down" when the claim statement can no longer be followed, so > until that happens we have nothing to adjudicate. > In fact what you are ascribing to "them" is that although they judge it irrational to play in a certain manner, they still don't believe that the stated line has broken down. That is not a coherent point of view and I doubt anyone actually has that point of view : the Laws themselves say "unless it would be irrational to ..." [snip] > > > In the AKQJ5432 opposite void case, we do not allow declarer to > > > "rethink" his stupidity in having overlooked the possibility of a 5-0 > > > break *until* he cashes the first round, when the overlooked > > > possibility is revealed as fact, and it becomes irrational not to > > > notice it. We do not "force" him to continue the suit until he loses > > > to the 10 as though we presume that he doesn't know that there are 13 > > > hearts in the deck -- even if we have reason to believe that he really > > > might not know that there are 13 hearts in the deck. > > > >We are in agreement on the ruling, but not on the principle. > >If we find that declarer claimed because he overlooked the > >possibility of a 5-0 break, then we should decide when > >claimer would have thought of the possibility in his > >(fictitious) play. > >This could be (and I'm not saying that it shall always be) > >before playing a single further card, which is earlier than > >what you are stating, Eric. > > Herman argues that it might be irrational not to consider the effect of > a 5-0 break before playing a card, notwithstanding that declarer didn't > consider it when claiming. I argue that that is merely stupid, but > that it becomes irrational not to consider the 5-0 break once you see > it in front of you. We both disagree with the view that it remains > merely stupid, not irrational, beyond that point, which is the view > held by those who would force declarer to lose to the H10. > We are in clear disagreement here, Eric. You really don't see that it is possible for someone to claim without counting the number of hearts ? When there are approximately 16 tricks lying in front of you ? I have often claimed without thinking about the play. And I have often had it happen that I overlooked something. And I have often been ruled against (and ruled against myself). But when it turns out that even I would not have misplayed the hand had I thought about it for 2 seconds, then I want a ruling in my favour. Yes, I know I should have thought those 2 seconds before claiming, but then I'm not perfect, am I ? > >When it is clear that a player has claimed WITHOUT making a > >plan of the play, then we do not assume that claimer will > >also play without making such a plan. It is IMO > >inconceivable that any player plays off cards without > >looking at all 26 of them at least once. > > IMO it is no more inconceivable than that a player claims without > looking at all 26 of them at least once, or that, having looked at > them, he will have seen something different if he was planning to claim > than he would have seen if he was planning to play on. > No, there really are two different moments of realization here. And some people claim between those two. And we should not withhold from them the second realization. You think it is inconceivable - yet it happens - I've done it time and time again. > The point, though, is that when it is clear that a player has claimed > without making a plan of the play, we follow L70 to determine the > outcome. L70 tells us only to disregard irrational lines. It neither > tells us nor permits us to disregard rational lines which we know the > declarer would not have included in his plan of play had he made one. > Indeed. Rational lines. But you are including lines that are irrational, or become so if we allow declarer a second look at the 26 cards. > What's more, if Herman wins this one, and the WBFLC decrees that we > must ignore lines that we know declarer would not have considered had > he considered at all, I will argue that we can never know for sure what > those are, and must give the benefit of the doubt to NOS, so it doesn't > matter. > That is not an argument - You and I will have cases where we agree that there is no doubt that declarer would find the line, if we allow him 2 seconds to look for it. We have a fundamental difference in that I will allow him those 2 seconds and you won't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 01:26:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56FPYO10919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:25:34 +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-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 f56FPOt10905 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:25:25 +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 157fAN-000HOf-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:24:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:36:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] new kind of 'could have known' ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010606131909.00862bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010606131909.00862bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20010606131909.00862bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >Dear blmlists, > >Many recent threads revolved around the notion of 'possibly-intentional' >breakings of law, covered by L23 and cross references to it in several >laws, and by Law 72BA . I would like to express concern about the fact that >unexpected cases may need to be covered by said Laws. In particular, L72B1 >and B2 are too vague to be usefully invoked. > >This is a recent live case. > >South's hand : S void / H KJ1098xx / D KQJ10x / C x > >Barring strong action from partner, you would be happy to be allowed to >play 4H, possibly doubled, either as a make or as a good sacrifice. Of >course, the opponents will not be kind enough to oblige. However ... > >Holding this hand, South opened OOT with 1H. North was dealer. The OOOT was >rejected, North passed perforce, East made his normal 1C bid, then South >bid 4H. West doubled ('tranferable values' ). Now, East, with : > Axxx / x / Axx / KJ10xx >decided that South was making the usual gamble-after-barring-partner, and >passed the double. >The contract went 1 down, with 5C an easy make (6 wins double-dummy). The >most common contract was 5HX-2. 4HX-1 earns South 80%. > >I wouldn't say South took a profit from barring partner - BTW North >wouldn't have acted in any normal sequence - but I can't avoid the feeling >that South 'could have known' that the OOOT and subsequent 4H bid would >make the opponents more prone to let him play there, doubled or not >according to the repartition of HCP. And so it proved to be. I am even more >suspicious from the fact that he opened 1H. If he had, in a burst of >enthusiasm, opened 4H, then repeated his 4H bid over 1C, my suspicions >would be quite mild, but it was clearly the 1H-4H combination that made >East pass, and South 'could have known' it. >Of course, nobody can prove it was made 'on purpose', but the same is true >of every L72B1 case. > >South might argue that it was not his combination of actions that provoked >the abnormal final contract, but East's final pass. BTA East might argue >that, without the 1H-4H combination, this would not have happened. >In other words, we are speaking of subsequent vs consequent. But is this >distinction graftable onto L72 ? > >My question is : would you apply L72B1 here ? This is another case of the Rottweiller coup. Now, the only reason that we could use L72 was that on that occasion the perpetrator held a 1-count and therefore could well know that the hand belonged to the other side. I don't think this applies here. Result stands. Much head- shaking. cheers john > >Thank you for your help, > >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/ -- 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 Jun 7 01:27:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56FRnE11017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:27:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f56FRht11011 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:27:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA05960 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA22742 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:26:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106061526.LAA22742@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] new kind of 'could have known' ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > ... but it was clearly the 1H-4H combination that made > East pass, and South 'could have known' it. If this bridge judgement is correct, then L72B1 most certainly applies. Why isn't it obvious? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 01:59:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56FxNa15224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:59:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56FxGt15216 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157fh3-000Ps4-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:58:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:44:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert References: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 09:14 PM 6/4/01, David wrote: > >>Richard Willey writes >> >> >Wouldn't it just be easier to replace all Alerts followed by >> >mandotory requests for explanations with Announcements? >> >For what its worth, I have long advocated that online bridge should >> >adopt just this sort of system. >> >> I do not think this is quite so correct as it sounds. It is easier >>for someone to understand an answer if they have asked a question. >> >> Announcements are fine for really simple stuff. But the moment you >>get to something as complex as the meaning of 1S 2D X I think you need a >>question as well as an answer otherwise there will be a lot of >>confusion. > >David's argument has no relevance to the ACBL, where it is an official >policy/guideline that the *only* proper form for an initial request for >an explanation is, "Please explain." Ok, let's deal with the real world. You need to know what the Landau 3C shows, how many points, what suit lengths, and so on. "Please explain" "Takeout." ??????????????????? I know perfectly well the theory of how and what you should ask. I know the minority views of one or two of our more stubborn members of BLML. I know all this. But I also know that this is a game of bridge, and it is played by human beings who act like human beings. If everyone was absolutely perfect in all situations what would we need TDs, ACs and BLML for? So, **even in the ACBL**, asking questions does make the answers more intelligible. -- 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 Jun 7 01:59:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56FxYu15236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 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 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 f56FxKt15221 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:59:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157fh3-000Ps3-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:58:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:44:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] new kind of 'could have known' ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010606131909.00862bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010606131909.00862bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >Dear blmlists, > >Many recent threads revolved around the notion of 'possibly-intentional' >breakings of law, covered by L23 and cross references to it in several >laws, and by Law 72BA . I would like to express concern about the fact that >unexpected cases may need to be covered by said Laws. In particular, L72B1 >and B2 are too vague to be usefully invoked. That is the opposite of the case: it is because they are vague that they can be invoked easily. If you tighten them thne fewer cases would be covered by them. >This is a recent live case. > >South's hand : S void / H KJ1098xx / D KQJ10x / C x > >Barring strong action from partner, you would be happy to be allowed to >play 4H, possibly doubled, either as a make or as a good sacrifice. Of >course, the opponents will not be kind enough to oblige. However ... > >Holding this hand, South opened OOT with 1H. North was dealer. The OOOT was >rejected, North passed perforce, East made his normal 1C bid, then South >bid 4H. West doubled ('tranferable values' ). Now, East, with : > Axxx / x / Axx / KJ10xx >decided that South was making the usual gamble-after-barring-partner, and >passed the double. >The contract went 1 down, with 5C an easy make (6 wins double-dummy). The >most common contract was 5HX-2. 4HX-1 earns South 80%. > >I wouldn't say South took a profit from barring partner - BTW North >wouldn't have acted in any normal sequence - but I can't avoid the feeling >that South 'could have known' that the OOOT and subsequent 4H bid would >make the opponents more prone to let him play there, doubled or not >according to the repartition of HCP. And so it proved to be. I am even more >suspicious from the fact that he opened 1H. If he had, in a burst of >enthusiasm, opened 4H, then repeated his 4H bid over 1C, my suspicions >would be quite mild, but it was clearly the 1H-4H combination that made >East pass, and South 'could have known' it. >Of course, nobody can prove it was made 'on purpose', but the same is true >of every L72B1 case. > >South might argue that it was not his combination of actions that provoked >the abnormal final contract, but East's final pass. BTA East might argue >that, without the 1H-4H combination, this would not have happened. >In other words, we are speaking of subsequent vs consequent. But is this >distinction graftable onto L72 ? > >My question is : would you apply L72B1 here ? I am not sure, but it is a *judgement* decision: because of the deliberately and usefully vague wording of L72B1 this hand is covered if you make the judgement that you would wish it to 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 Thu Jun 7 03:13:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56HDR704810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 03:13:27 +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 f56HDJt04799 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 03:13:20 +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, 6 Jun 2001 10:07:59 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01c0eeab$c232c7a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010606161242.00875100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:11:32 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" > >: since L73F1 provides for > adjusted scores, L90B7 applies. That's an odd reading of L73F1. "Grasping at straws" is our analogy. A PP is not an adjusted score, read DEFINITIONS and L12. L73F1 carefully references L16, not L90. > As for the case where there is no influence on the score of the deal, there > is the word 'must' in L73C, and the consequnce of this verb as given in the > prolegomena. The remedy in the case of damage lies in L16A/L12. No influence on the game? Then give a lecture or write a Player Memo (in ACBL-land). The *must* applies to the player, not to the assessment of a PP. 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 Jun 7 04:08:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56I7em05305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:07:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56I7Yt05301 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:07:35 +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, 6 Jun 2001 11:02:17 -0700 Message-ID: <003b01c0eeb3$57de0a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:05:50 -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 Wright" > David Stevenson writes > > > > I do not approve of PPs for odd occurrences, but they are > > necessary > > for pairs that do things wrong again and again. > > > In the case of one of the clubs I direct at; > 1. 14 and 12 cards > 2. Failing to number the traveller (a pain when computer scoring) > 3. Failing to score on the correct line on the traveller > > Just for good measure we publish all the PPs at the bottom of the > score sheet. > -- Very good, and I agree with both of you. Have I ever said otherwise? Note that all of Steve's examples concern procedural errors that are unique to duplicate bridge, making them a fit subject for L90B's "but not limited to." A PP is up to the TD's discretion, of course, but I hope a preliminary warning is given. It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: "Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." I wish they would do that! Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 04:16:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56IFiF05321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:15:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56IFdt05317 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:15:40 +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, 6 Jun 2001 11:10:15 -0700 Message-ID: <004301c0eeb4$755802c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> <01060513463601.01029@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:13:55 -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: "David J Grabiner" > The ACBL's rule for > announcing NT ranges helps, although people do still ask when the range > is 15-17. Currently the Announcement is only for ranges that are not contained within 15-18 HCP. It is almost sure that *all* 1NT openings and direct 1NT overcalls will soon require an Announcement. It's a good rule: simple, easy to remember, and it eliminates the "selective" (weak hand, good hand) query as to a strong notrump range. 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 Jun 7 04:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56IjsR09514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:45:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56Ijmt09483 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:45:49 +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, 6 Jun 2001 11:40:31 -0700 Message-ID: <006501c0eeb8$af681140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:37:44 -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: "Ian Kidger" (snip) > My partner, also from > the UK, was threatened with a ZT penalty in a KO match when, after the third > or fourth UI-laden question, asked LHO if RHOs question was for takeout. (I > don't condone the comment but understood the frustration behind it). My > limited experience suggests a lot less UI gets transmitted, and more > importantly, *used* in EBU events. > When I told John Strauch about a very fast double (X card snapped down fast and hard enough to startle me) of my partner's 5D bid in a competitive auction (playing against two pros!), he said his partner Evan Bailey would have asked LHO: "Is that for penalty?" Unlike the question Ian's partner asked, this one seems to be exempt from Zero Tolerance provisions. 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 Jun 7 04:56:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56Iu5s13094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:56:05 +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 f56Itxt13059 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:55:59 +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, 6 Jun 2001 11:50:36 -0700 Message-ID: <007201c0eeba$180b5ee0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 11:46:58 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > The ABF requires a declaring side which has > perpetrated one or more self-alerting calls to > ask the defending side before the opening lead, > "Do you want an explanation of the auction?" > > {I enjoy making obscure calls; my partner once > asked the opponents for an explanation of my > auction.} I must remember that one. Currently, when we are the declaring side, I ask the opponents if they want to know about some bid my partner has made. When they say yes, I say, "I have no idea!" That's better than saying nothing and having the opponents think we haven't disclosed some special partnership agreement. > > The ABF permits a player to ask a question in a > "Please explain?" format about any alerted or > self-alerted call, provided that the player does > so at her first opportunity. If that time is > past, a player still has the right to ask for an > explanation of the entire auction. > Wonderful! Australia seems to be one of the few places where L20F1 is understood and obeyed. 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 Jun 7 05:59:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56JwmV05472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 05:58:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56Jwgt05437 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 05:58:43 +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, 6 Jun 2001 12:53:24 -0700 Message-ID: <00b601c0eec2$de574020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 12:55:59 -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" > Eric Landau writes > > David wrote: > > > >> Announcements are fine for really simple stuff. But the > >> moment you > >> get to something as complex as the meaning of 1S 2D X I think > >> you need a > >> question as well as an answer otherwise there will be a lot of > >> confusion. > > > >David's argument has no relevance to the ACBL, where it is an > >official policy/guideline that the *only* proper form for an > >initial request for > >an explanation is, "Please explain." > > Ok, let's deal with the real world. > > You need to know what the Landau 3C shows, how many points, what > suit lengths, and so on. > > "Please explain" > > "Takeout." That is not sufficient in ACBL-land, because the ACBL Alert Procedure says that "all relevant disclosure should be given automatically." Moreover, the ACBL's *Principle of Full Disclosure* provides for a "Would you tell me more about your style" request when it is felt that the initial explanation (or cc information) was insufficient. > > ??????????????????? > > I know perfectly well the theory of how and what you should ask. > I know the minority views of one or two of our more stubborn > members of BLML. I know all this. > > But I also know that this is a game of bridge, and it is played > by human beings who act like human beings. If everyone was > absolutely perfect in all situations what would we need TDs, > ACs and BLML for? > > So, **even in the ACBL**, asking questions does make the answers > more intelligible. It is better to request explanations than to ask questions. Unfortunately, very few players will explain all their special partnership agreements concerning a call. Pointed questions (after the request!) can sometimes get it out of them. When necessary such questions are permitted by L20F1, but are subject to L16 (as the footnote says). Take the "Could be three cards" explanation for an Alerted 1D opening. "Would you tell me more about style?" "Could be three cards." "Under what conditions can it be three cards?" "I don't know what you mean." "Can you give me an example hand?" "Well, four spades, four hearts, three diamonds, and two clubs." "Is any other distribution possible?" "I don't think so." "Thank you." The information requester has acted in complete accord with ACBL regulations and the Laws, unless s/he knows all about this 1D opening and is asking questions for partner's benefit. More player education is needed. Bridge teachers should include disclosure requirements in their curriculum, but I don't think that any of our local teachers do so. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 05:59:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56JxN105673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 05:59:24 +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 f56JxFt05628 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 05:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56D9xe01673 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:09:59 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:08:09 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <003b01c0eeb3$57de0a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003b01c0eeb3$57de0a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01060613095904.01620@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 06 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: > "Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain > view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." Should be "two convention cards," but otherwise, a good idea. (Some allowance might be given for last-minute pairs, when one player has not yet copied partner's card.) > I wish they would do that! -- 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 Jun 7 06:51:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56Kob616860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 06:50:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56KoVt16824 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 06:50:31 +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, 6 Jun 2001 13:45:13 -0700 Message-ID: <00c301c0eeca$1b7c2860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c0ed65$c0111a40$07407bd5@dodona> <002901c0edea$0b361dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:48:52 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > >Same paragraph: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment > >for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." C&E offenses > >are not a concern of the Laws, other than those that must be treated > >under L91. Using PPs for these offenses is not justifiable. It's a > >lazy way to treat them, no paperwork required, making its popularity > >understandable. It also provides a feeling of power and control that > >may be gratifying to some types. > > What I cannot understand is why you keep saying things like this, and > then complain about the use of PPs in cases which are not C&E, which are > not disciplinary. > > Of course, as has been pointed out a few times before, your [and some > other people's] presumption that the word primarily means absolutely and > with no exceptions ever in this lifetime is a little obscure! > > The examples from Anaheim where PPs are given were none of them C&E- > type offences: they were given for violations of procedure. Not all of them were C&E (Conduct and Ethics) violations. One was for violation of ACBL Alert regulations, and I should not have generalized. Case 1, 13, 16, and 22 involved egregious UI violations, which surely come under the heading of ethics. Case 26 involved both UI and a mis-Alert, but the casebook panelists wanted a PP for the UI, not for the MI. Again, ethics. Case 37 concerned a no-damage Alert failure that some casebook panelists (but not the TD panel) thought deserving of a PP. Since Alerts are the subject of ACBL regulation, one might think that they should involve PPs for an Alert mistake. However, Alert mistakes are MI, subject to the MI laws. The ACBL Alert Procedure makes no references to PPs for violations. The only time a PP can be justified is when a player has been warned by the TD but continues to err, a violation of L90B8. It must be obvious that no-damage Alert errors occur by the hundreds in a typical ACBL game. No one thinks of penalizing them unless the the deal is the subject of an appeal. Then a PP constitutes a sop for the NOS, giving them some satisfaction. > > >> Also that the extended cross-referencing is > >> not said to be exhaustive; Law 90 can perhaps > >> be seen to cross-reference in some degree to > >> every other Law. > > > >I don't see that. David has told me it applies to every other law. > >If so, why itemize typical procedural offenses in L90B? With eight > >sample offenses listed, isn't it strange that not one was included > >for C&E offenses such as those given PPs in Anaheim? > > No, why should it be strange? Of course, you keep talking about C&E > offences, when there were none in the cases to which you refer. But > your presumption that L90A does not mean what L90A says is not a tenable > position. L90A is explained by L90B. That is a tenable position. > > >Rubber bridge is the parent of duplicate bridge, and its principles > >should be followed whenever possible. > > Why? It is a different game, and this seems another completely > untenable position. > The differences should be minimized. I thought everyone had that opinion. I believe there are some efforts afoot to reduce the differences. The 300 step for doubled non-vulnerable undertricks was adopted by rubber bridge, even though the change was for reasons applicable to duplicate bridge only. 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 Jun 7 07:15:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56LEhJ21509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:14:44 +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 f56LEct21505 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:14:38 +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, 6 Jun 2001 14:09:20 -0700 Message-ID: <00df01c0eecd$7a5570a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003b01c0eeb3$57de0a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01060613095904.01620@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:13:01 -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" wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: > > "Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain > > view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." > > Should be "two convention cards," but otherwise, a good idea. "Anyone" is singular, but I should have written "Any pair..." The ccs should be oriented for easy reading by an opponent. Recently an obnoxious Swiss team opponent persisted in placing the card upside-down from my point of view, and I had to ask if I could turn it, request granted. On the third deal I asked if he would please turn it my way after entering his scores. The reply was "Turn it yourself!" The TD was on his side, asking me "What's the big deal?" Hating to lose face, I called the TD again when he grabbed my partner's cc at his partner's turn to call. He indignantly asserted his right to look at the cc anytime. There's a Law about that, so face was regained. (If I have told this story before, sorry. My accident, you know...) > (Some > allowance might be given for last-minute pairs, when one player has > not yet copied partner's card.) > Of course. An NABC TD told such a pair to have the card filled out as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the next break. It's gratifying to me that NABC TDs uphold the cc regulations very strictly in NABC+ events. Only attention is called to violations, however. That announcement is needed. In these parts, at regionals and sectionals the TD sympathizes with the opponents when I point out a pro's cc violation. "Why don't you just ask about something you want to know?" is a typical TD comment. Several weeks ago I sent an e-mail to our regional supervisor of ACBL TDs, regarding unenforced cc regulations. If I don't get an answer soon, I'll forward that e-mail to ACBL headquarters. Marv Marvin L. French -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 08:00:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56Lxgf21529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:59:42 +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 f56Lxat21525 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 07:59:36 +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 f56LwPs58494 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:58:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010606174521.00ab9490@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, 06 Jun 2001 17:58:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604080636.00ab7da0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:51 PM 6/4/01, Roger wrote: >Two notions come to mind. > >The first is that before making rules it not only is pragmatic to know >what outcome one is seeking, it is prudent. > >If there is a notion of an absolute principle one central to the task >is that rules are best made that solve the problems of players, and >certainly ought not create them. > >With bridge there are many issues involved, most of them can be >recognized through the application of the first notion. The player's >biggest problem is that the survival instinct is in direct conflict >with the limits on communication that are the game. I will suggest >that the second notion speaks loudly upon the concepts being pondered >in this thread. The pragmatic view, I should think, suggests writing the Laws of Bridge to avoid suggesting that questions and replies, or the like, convey UI per se, which is absolute, but rather to explicitly address "manner", or some such, which is relative, and subject to some rather considerable degree of interpretation, leaving it to the NCBOs to deal with Roger's potentially knotty notions in all of their regionally appropriate(*) variations. (*) Well, we can hope, can't we? >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau >| David is right, of course; my suggested rewording will not do. What >I >| was thinking about was the manner in which partner asks a question >or >| gives a reply (or, through the "as by", says anything at all). The >| substance of the reply must, of course, remain a possible source of >| UI. I was too focused on the particular issue we were discussing. >| >| Revised proposal: "the manner in which a call, question or statement >is >| made, a reply to a question". >| >| The immediate objective is to make clear that asking (or not asking) >a >| question should not be considered a possible source of UI per se, >but >| should be if there is something "improper" about the way it is done. >| >| S: "1S." W: "Pass." N: "4C." S: "Alert." E: "Please explain." >The >| point here is that even if you believe that E's request for an >| explanation virtually guarantees a club holding, his absolute right >to >| know what 4C means should preempt the possible application of L16, >else >| he is effectively being penalized for exercising what the law holds >to >| be his absolute right. But if we change the law to clarify this, we >| must be careful to do so in such a way that if E instead says "That >| doesn't show clubs, does it?" we can still throw the book at him. >| >| Now perhaps my thinking is overly simplistic, biased by the fact >that >| in the circles I play in, the above dialog would not particularly >| suggest a club holding (bear in mind that in the ACBL it is >perfectly >| acceptable to ask about a bid when its meaning cannot affect your >next >| action), and reaching this objective in a manner appropriate for all >| may take a whole new law. Perhaps we need to introduce some sort of >| "lesser form of UI" to cover the extraneous information produced by >a >| proper disclosure request. In possession of such "minor UI", a >player >| would not be permitted to make an "unusual" or "abnormal" call, or >some >| such, but would not be subject to the stringent constraints of L16. >| >| Admittedly, my position falls apart if one rejects my premise that >the >| right to full disclosure is absolute. This does seem to be the >| position of the EBU, which appears to have said that you have the >right >| to full disclosure during the auction only at such time as it may >| affect your next action. That is a position which I strongly >oppose, >| but that's for another thread. >| >| >| 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 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 Jun 7 08:59:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56MwfY21562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:58:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f56Mwbt21558 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:58:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA10878 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:03:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:48:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:55:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/06/2001 08:52:57 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk {Apologies to Eric Landau for duplicate posting} In the thread *Asking about an Alert*, Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >I know several players locally (I am one of them) who >already play a lot less duplicate than they otherwise >might because they are not willing to commit four >hours to playing 26 deals, which they can easily do >in under an hour and a half with their friends at home. Why is ACBL-land so slow? Of the three ABF-affiliated clubs in Canberra, two play 24-deal sessions in three hours, while the other plays 28-deal sessions in three and a half hours. 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 Jun 7 09:20:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f56NKTs21584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 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 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 f56NKOt21580 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:20:24 +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 JAA13061 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:24:59 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:10:26 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:16:51 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/06/2001 09:14:44 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: [snip] >It's gratifying to me that NABC TDs uphold >the cc regulations very strictly in NABC+ >events. [snip] The strictest ABF cc regulations are for the annual Interstate Teams Championships. Convention cards are required to be circulated to all opposing teams one month before the event starts. A few years ago, pairs from the Northern Territory and Canberra Women's Teams were about to start play in their match. The Northern Territory pair suddenly discovered that they had left their convention cards back at their hotel. The Canberra pair were believers in the Scout motto *Be Prepared*, so showed great style by giving their opponents the pre- circulated copies of the Northern Territory convention cards. 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 Jun 7 11:29:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f571SqQ17055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:28:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f571Sjt17015 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:28:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 157oa9-0004rs-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 01:27:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 02:00:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c0ed65$c0111a40$07407bd5@dodona> <002901c0edea$0b361dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00c301c0eeca$1b7c2860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00c301c0eeca$1b7c2860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Case 1, 13, 16, and 22 involved egregious UI violations, which >surely come under the heading of ethics. No, they come under the heading of UI violations. I see no reason why the TDs give PPs, the ACs give PPs, the panelists agree with PPs, and you and only you wish them to be otherwise. They are not C&E-type DPs: they are PPs for violations of procedure, as everyone except you accepts. >Case 26 involved both UI and a mis-Alert, but the casebook panelists >wanted a PP for the UI, not for the MI. Again, ethics. Again, UI, not ethics. >Case 37 concerned a no-damage Alert failure that some casebook >panelists (but not the TD panel) thought deserving of a PP. Since >Alerts are the subject of ACBL regulation, one might think that they >should involve PPs for an Alert mistake. However, Alert mistakes are >MI, subject to the MI laws. The ACBL Alert Procedure makes no >references to PPs for violations. The only time a PP can be >justified is when a player has been warned by the TD but continues >to err, a violation of L90B8. That is wrong. A PP is justified under L90A when a TD or AC judges it to be correct. >L90A is explained by L90B. That is a tenable position. It might be if the Law supported this, but the wording does not. Are you really suggesting we ignore what the Law actually says? We have a Law [90A] which is clear: which is known to TDs and ACs around the world. You wish it to be different from what it says. Why? >> >Rubber bridge is the parent of duplicate bridge, and its >principles >> >should be followed whenever possible. >> >> Why? It is a different game, and this seems another completely >> untenable position. >> >The differences should be minimized. I thought everyone had that >opinion. Of course not. That is like saying that since Rugby football is the parent of American Football the differences should be minimised. I see no reason why. > I believe there are some efforts afoot to reduce the >differences. The 300 step for doubled non-vulnerable undertricks was >adopted by rubber bridge, even though the change was for reasons >applicable to duplicate bridge only. Just because something has been done similarly does not mean either that other things should be similar nor that the games should be made the same. I just do not see where you are going. We have enough problems in this game without your efforts to make PPs less effective by limiting them against the wording of L90A. If we followed your methods then there would be more UI used. I am amazed that you wish the game to become poorer in this way. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 17:15:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f577Dwl06189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:13:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f577Dpt06185 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:13:52 +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, 7 Jun 2001 09:14:08 +0200 Message-ID: <002301c0ef21$56037400$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:13:21 +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 f577Dst06186 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > More player education is needed. Bridge teachers should include disclosure > requirements in their curriculum, but I don't think that any of our local > teachers do so. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ At least ACBL's bridge course touches on the subject in Audrey Grant's Spade Series. The alert procedure, the skip bid warning, the function of the director and the ethics of the game are clearly explained at the beginner level. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 18:34:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f578Y9f06220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:34:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f578Y0t06216 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:34:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-12.dunharrow.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.160.140] helo=default) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 157vDl-0001ra-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:32:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000101c0ef2c$780273c0$8ca0883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: "BLML" References: <002301c0ef21$56037400$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:31:23 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some years ago a group of players at my club started calling the td after EVERY question and pass. This "education" worked very well. lnb ----- Original Message ----- From: Rik Terveen To: BLML Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:13 AM Subject: Fw: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 9:55 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > > > > > More player education is needed. Bridge teachers should include disclosure > > requirements in their curriculum, but I don't think that any of our local > > teachers do so. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French, ISPE > > San Diego, CA, USA > > > > -- > > ================================================ ======================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-L AWS/ > > At least ACBL's bridge course touches on the subject in Audrey Grant's Spade Series. The alert procedure, the skip bid warning, the function of the director and the ethics of the game are clearly explained at the beginner level. > > -- > ================================================ ======================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-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 Thu Jun 7 18:44:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f578iPg06237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:44:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.svr.pol.co.uk (mail1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f578iJt06233 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:44:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-38.dungortheb.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.160.38] helo=default) by mail1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 157vNl-0002vA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:43:09 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c0ef2d$e931dda0$8ca0883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:42:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here too, that sort of timing would not be acceptable. Last night at the club I had a 9 Mitchell (switched) and a 10 Howell playing duplicated boards. They finished in 3.20 (27 bds) and 3.15 (26 bds) respectively. I had the boards etc away, the result and master-points printed and was in my car after 3.35 This was not considered abnormal. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:55 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise > > {Apologies to Eric Landau for duplicate posting} > > In the thread *Asking about an Alert*, Eric Landau wrote: > > [snip] > > >I know several players locally (I am one of them) who > >already play a lot less duplicate than they otherwise > >might because they are not willing to commit four > >hours to playing 26 deals, which they can easily do > >in under an hour and a half with their friends at home. > > Why is ACBL-land so slow? Of the three ABF-affiliated > clubs in Canberra, two play 24-deal sessions in three > hours, while the other plays 28-deal sessions in three > and a half hours. > > 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-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 Thu Jun 7 22:25:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57COSG14659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:24:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57COLt14628 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:24:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA10256; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:19:37 +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 OAA12939; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:23:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010607142716.00800590@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:27:16 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC In-Reply-To: <001f01c0eeab$c232c7a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010606161242.00875100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:11 6/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "alain gottcheiner" >> >>: since L73F1 provides for >> adjusted scores, L90B7 applies. > >That's an odd reading of L73F1. "Grasping at straws" is our analogy. >A PP is not an adjusted score, read DEFINITIONS and L12. L73F1 >carefully references L16, not L90. > >> As for the case where there is no influence on the score of the >deal, there >> is the word 'must' in L73C, and the consequnce of this verb as >given in the >> prolegomena. > >The remedy in the case of damage lies in L16A/L12. No influence on >the game? Then give a lecture or write a Player Memo (in ACBL-land). >The *must* applies to the player, not to the assessment of a PP. AG : let me be more explicit. L73C says 'a player must avoid ...' And the prolegomena say 'when the verb "must" is used, failing to do as required will create a sanction, barring some exceptions (translated from my French version). Thus, not avoiding taking advantage will, indeed, expose you to a sanction, damage or not (since L73C doesn't speak of damage). 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 Jun 7 22:30:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57CTsE16563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:29:54 +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-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 f57CGTt11805 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:16:37 +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 f57CDGu04844 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:13:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607080313.00aba240@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, 07 Jun 2001 08:13:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <01060513463601.01029@psa836> References: <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:31 AM 6/5/01, David wrote: >This principle does exist in one other situation; if an opponent does >not make a skip-bid warning, you cannot lose your right to the >10-second pause that would have been required. FTR, this is a bit of a misstatement. In the ACBL (and, I believe, in most other jurisdictions as well), (a) a player about to make a skip bid should make a skip-bid warning, and (b) the next player to call after a skip bid should pause for about 10 seconds. These requirements are independent of one another; an opponent's failure to do (a) does not affect one's obligation to do (b), notwithstanding that it may have the effect of mitigating the penalty for a violation in some cases. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 22:35:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57CZjG18622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:35:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57CZct18582 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:35:38 +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 OAA22973; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:34:20 +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 OAA21256; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:34:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010607143833.0086bcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:38:33 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 In-Reply-To: <003b01c0eeb3$57de0a60$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 At 11:05 6/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: >"Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain >view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." > >I wish they would do that! AG : I'd love that ! In Belgium, 90% of the field would be penalized, that is, the first 2 or 3 occurrences at least. But what would you do about the few that found a partner at the desk ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 7 22:43:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57Cgr721181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:42:53 +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-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 f57Cgkt21147 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 22:42:47 +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 f57CfZe23203 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 08:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607083439.00b1f380@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, 07 Jun 2001 08:42:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:57 AM 6/6/01, Herman wrote: >Indeed. Rational lines. But you are including lines that >are irrational, or become so if we allow declarer a second >look at the 26 cards. Herman has found the nub of our disagreement. I believe that given the claimer's hand, the dummy's hand and the play up to the point of the claim (and, conceivably, the auction), some of the subsequent lines of play are rational ones, the others are not (this is true whether or not one believes that which are which depend on the class of player involved). I do not believe that introducing a presumption that declarer would have studied his cards more carefully before playing on than he did before claiming moves any of those lines from one category to the other. 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 Jun 7 23:41:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57Df7N11755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:41:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f57Dext11711 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA24490; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:47:52 +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 OAA01290; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:47:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010607145205.0086b670@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 14:52:05 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <00b601c0eec2$de574020$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@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 12:55 6/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Take the "Could be three cards" explanation for an Alerted 1D >opening. > >"Would you tell me more about style?" > >"Could be three cards." > >"Under what conditions can it be three cards?" > >"I don't know what you mean." > >"Can you give me an example hand?" > >"Well, four spades, four hearts, three diamonds, and two clubs." > >"Is any other distribution possible?" > >"I don't think so." > >"Thank you." AG : OK, let's take another case. T4 match, experimented players all around. N S 1C 1D 1NT 2C Every bid is alerted. West reaches for the NS CC (in which no single sq" is left blank), sees that 1C = strong 16+ (no 6-card suit), 1D = any 0-7, 1NT = unbalanced with 4+ hearts. Now he asks about the 2C bid. N : shows 3 cards in hearts W : in which type of hand ? N : with any hand containing 3 cards in hearts W : yes, but what does he promise ? N : 3 cards in hearts W : could he have bid 2D for example ? N : yes, but not with 3 hearts And so on, for about 2 minutes (12 exchanges or so). BTW, N's explanation was correct. I feel West is as big a nuisance as the one who won't explain immediately. And there are still those who genuinely play "better minor", that is, the same pattern (4333 or 3433) will be opened either with 1C or 1D. It makes me feel like in your case, the asker knew who he was playing against. 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 Jun 8 00:07:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57E6qB20757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:06:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57E6jt20720 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:06:45 +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 QAA05609; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:05:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA29201; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:05:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010607160940.00865c90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 16:09:40 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607080313.00aba240@127.0.0.1> References: <01060513463601.01029@psa836> <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:13 7/06/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:31 AM 6/5/01, David wrote: > >>This principle does exist in one other situation; if an opponent does >>not make a skip-bid warning, you cannot lose your right to the >>10-second pause that would have been required. > >FTR, this is a bit of a misstatement. In the ACBL (and, I believe, in >most other jurisdictions as well), (a) a player about to make a skip >bid should make a skip-bid warning, and (b) the next player to call >after a skip bid should pause for about 10 seconds. These requirements >are independent of one another; an opponent's failure to do (a) does >not affect one's obligation to do (b), notwithstanding that it may have >the effect of mitigating the penalty for a violation in some cases. AG : I'd like it to void the penalty altogether (and I've occasionally taken the liberty to adjudicate it so). Concentrated on his reasoning, the player sitting over the skip bid might well fail to realise it *was* a skip bid. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 8 00:13:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57EDPN23076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:13:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57EDHt23037 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:13:18 +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 QAA06615; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:12:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA03769; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:12:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 16:16:13 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607083439.00b1f380@127.0.0.1> References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:42 7/06/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:57 AM 6/6/01, Herman wrote: > >>Indeed. Rational lines. But you are including lines that >>are irrational, or become so if we allow declarer a second >>look at the 26 cards. Do we have to ? Aren't we supposed to assume that, upon claiming, the declarer has performed as much analysis as he felt necessary to do ? After all, a claim is equivalent to the statement that 'after having analysed the deal, I decide that I will make n tricks' (possibly contingent on a finesse or anything). Why should we allow him to change opinions ? 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 Jun 8 03:07:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57H6jw07975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:06:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57H6dt07971 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:06:39 +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 f57H6Xa29588 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000901c0ef73$feab71a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <002301c0ef21$56037400$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:04:48 -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: "Rik Terveen" > > From: Marvin L. French > > More player education is needed. Bridge teachers should include disclosure > > requirements in their curriculum, but I don't think that any of our local > > teachers do so. > > At least ACBL's bridge course touches on the subject in Audrey Grant's Spade Series. The alert procedure, the skip bid warning, the > function of the director and the ethics of the game are clearly explained at the beginner level. That's good to know. Of the many teachers in this area, only one SFIK uses Audrey's materials. I'm not familiar with these, but I presume the Spade Series is the fourth after Club, Diamond, Heart. I think the ethics of the game should come earlier, perhaps by merely quoting L16A as a start. The paperback version of the Laws should be offered at some time, perhaps after "graduation." It doesn't cost much. 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 Jun 8 03:47:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57HkqW10978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:46:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57Hkjt10942 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:46:46 +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 f57Hkea13858 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001d01c0ef79$996b4800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010606161242.00875100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010607142716.00800590@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:37:52 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >From: "alain gottcheiner" > >> > >>: since L73F1 provides for > >> adjusted scores, L90B7 applies. > > > >That's an odd reading of L73F1. "Grasping at straws" is our analogy. > >A PP is not an adjusted score, read DEFINITIONS and L12. L73F1 > >carefully references L16, not L90. > > > >> As for the case where there is no influence on the score of the > >deal, there > >> is the word 'must' in L73C, and the consequnce of this verb as > >given in the > >> prolegomena. > > > >The remedy in the case of damage lies in L16A/L12. No influence on > >the game? Then give a lecture or write a Player Memo (in ACBL-land). > >The *must* applies to the player, not to the assessment of a PP. > > > AG : let me be more explicit. L73C says 'a player must avoid ...' And the > prolegomena say 'when the verb "must" is used, failing to do as required > will create a sanction, barring some exceptions (translated from my French > version). Thus, not avoiding taking advantage will, indeed, expose you to a > sanction, damage or not (since L73C doesn't speak of damage). > It doesn't speak of damage because L73F addresses violations of any part of L73, and L73F speaks of damage. 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 Jun 8 03:57:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57HuuX14424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:56:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57Hunt14389 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:56:50 +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 f57Huia16826 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002701c0ef7b$01a3c5e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010607143833.0086bcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:50:13 -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: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: > >"Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain > >view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." > > > >I wish they would do that! > > AG : I'd love that ! In Belgium, 90% of the field would be penalized, that > is, the first 2 or 3 occurrences at least. But what would you do about the > few that found a partner at the desk ? > That's easy in ACBL-land. Require them to use the Standard American Yellow Card (available at tournaments) until they can manage to fill out their ccs, which must be done expeditiously. Since a basic system cannot be changed during a session in ACBL-land, the TD should allow only convention changes that modify the basic SAYC system, not a total change of system. That is unlikely to be burdensome to a pickup partnership. For Belgium, I don't have an answer. 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 Jun 8 04:26:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57IQPN23511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:26:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57IQHt23470 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:26:18 +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 f57IP5428219 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607141021.00b1fe20@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, 07 Jun 2001 14:25:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@127.0.0.1> <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <004201c0ed28$4a7f37e0$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010606090900.00ab8c10@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:44 AM 6/6/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > >At 09:14 PM 6/4/01, David wrote: > > > >>Richard Willey writes > >> > >> >Wouldn't it just be easier to replace all Alerts followed by > >> >mandotory requests for explanations with Announcements? > >> >For what its worth, I have long advocated that online bridge should > >> >adopt just this sort of system. > >> > >> I do not think this is quite so correct as it sounds. It is easier > >>for someone to understand an answer if they have asked a question. > >> > >> Announcements are fine for really simple stuff. But the moment you > >>get to something as complex as the meaning of 1S 2D X I think you > need a > >>question as well as an answer otherwise there will be a lot of > >>confusion. > > > >David's argument has no relevance to the ACBL, where it is an official > >policy/guideline that the *only* proper form for an initial request for > >an explanation is, "Please explain." > > Ok, let's deal with the real world. > > You need to know what the Landau 3C shows, how many points, what suit >lengths, and so on. > > "Please explain" > > "Takeout." > > ??????????????????? > > I know perfectly well the theory of how and what you should ask. I >know the minority views of one or two of our more stubborn members of >BLML. I know all this. > > But I also know that this is a game of bridge, and it is played by >human beings who act like human beings. If everyone was absolutely >perfect in all situations what would we need TDs, ACs and BLML for? > > So, **even in the ACBL**, asking questions does make the answers more >intelligible. I think David may have overlooked the word "initial". There is certainly no prohibition in the ACBL (nor, AFAIK, anywhere else), expressed or implied, against asking suitable follow-up questions to an explanation which was not sufficiently complete, comprehensive or coherent when given in response to an initial inquiry. Richard's point, which is a narrow and straightforward one, is that if the initial inquiry were to be made mandatory, there would be no substantive difference, in either the ACBL or the real world, between: S: 3C. N: Alert. W: Please explain. N: Takeout. W: What are your agreements regarding S's strength and distribution? and S: 3C. N: Takeout. W: What are your agreements regarding S's strength and distribution? other than the recitation of a mandatory, invariant and obviously unnecessary catechism. 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 Jun 8 04:51:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57Ip8Y02266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:51:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57Ip1t02225 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 04:51:01 +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 f57Inn669689 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:49:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@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, 07 Jun 2001 14:50:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010606161242.00875100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$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 10:12 AM 6/6/01, alain wrote: >At 15:08 4/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Case 13 was a UI (Hesitation Blackwood) violation that resulted in > >an adjusted score. The AC considered a PP, but "declined to do so > >due to the lack of screening, the timing of the Director call, and > >the lack of solid evidence confirming the disputed hesitation." > >AG : this is illogical, and I'd like to be more virulent. Either the AC is >convinced there was UI and it was used, and a PP is appropriate ; or it >isn't, and it shouldn't correct the score. Doubt as a mitigating >circumstance ? Not for me ! I believe that the AC's decision is logical only given that they accepted the key assumption on which Marv based his argument. Had the committee believed that a hesitation is merely a procedural violation, but that such violations are subject to a PP, then they were indeed acting illogically: either the player hesitated, in which case they should have adjusted the score and given the PP, or he didn't, in which case they should have done neither, as Alain says. The actual ruling can only be explained if the AC believed, as Marv accuses, that PPs should be treated as essentially disciplinary in nature. It would then be consistent for them to state implicitly, as they certainly appear to have done, that they belived there was a hesitation, but that the evidence which justified that belief didn't meet the higher standard of proof required to take disciplinary action. 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 Jun 8 05:16:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57JFvB10990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:15:57 +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 f57JFot10952 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:15:50 +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 PAA01620 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA02778 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:14:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:14:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106071914.PAA02778@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >At 15:08 4/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Case 13 was... Is the casebook available online? I don't see it in the "members" area. If not, could someone provide a cross-reference to the same appeal in the Daily Bulletin? (We won't have the expert commentary there, but at least we can see the deal and the decision.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 8 05:50:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57Jns223041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:49:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f57Jnlt23007 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:49:48 +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 LAA13809 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:48:35 -0800 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:47:04 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Salvaging a movement Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I ran into an unusual situation for the first time this past Tuesday. I had a table play the wrong set of boards in the first round of my game, the error not discovered until the third round of the game. Normally this results in awarding a slew of average-plusses, several late plays, and at least one round's worth of boards needing factored. Movement was a 5 1/2 table Appendix Howell with pair 11 stationary where pair 7 began. Pairs 4 and 6 played boards 25-27 instead of 13-15 the first round. The problem was discovered in round 3 when I noticed there weren't enough scores on the board 13 traveller. Boards 25-27 were not due to be played for the first (proper) time until round 5. Pair 6 was scheduled to sit out boards 25-27 anyway. Pair 4 v 5 were to play 25-27 in round 6. Now, I *could* apply the standard solution here, giving A+ to pair 5 and factoring 25-27.But I decided that was an unnecessary inconvenience to pair 5: instead I had 25-27 reshuffled and put into play as scheduled. No factoring. 4v6 of course had late plays on 13-15. At the time I was asked whether it was legal for me to do this. I, to be honest, wasn't sure whether it was or not but decided it was the practical way to continued the game with the least possible damage to the movement. On reflection I've concluded it *was* legal. L15A1: If players play a board not designed for them to play in the current round, the director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have[sic] previously played the board. L6D3: Subject to L22A (Passed-out deals aren't redealt) there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when required by the Director for any reason compatible with the laws. Far as I can tell, L15A1 merely suggests I allow scores to stand if I don't have any reason to do something different and in this case, avoiding wasting pair 5's time and depriving them of 3 deals they came to play is a reason to do something different. Is that how the rest of you interpret the situation or not? GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 8 05:56:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57JuGw25263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:56:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f57Ju9t25230 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57D6pY02384 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:06:51 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:03:59 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.32.20010605135852.0072c698@pop3.iag.net> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607080313.00aba240@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607080313.00aba240@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01060713065103.02344@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 07 Jun 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:31 AM 6/5/01, David wrote: > > >This principle does exist in one other situation; if an opponent does > >not make a skip-bid warning, you cannot lose your right to the > >10-second pause that would have been required. > > FTR, this is a bit of a misstatement. In the ACBL (and, I believe, in > most other jurisdictions as well), (a) a player about to make a skip > bid should make a skip-bid warning, and (b) the next player to call > after a skip bid should pause for about 10 seconds. These requirements > are independent of one another; an opponent's failure to do (a) does > not affect one's obligation to do (b), notwithstanding that it may have > the effect of mitigating the penalty for a violation in some cases. My point is that you are not considered to have passed UI with a 10-second pause over a skip bid in any jurisdiction. If the skip-bid warning is required but is not given, you may still pause for 10 seconds without passing UI. (The failure to give the warning may mitigate penalties for UI associated with a quick bid.) -- 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 Jun 8 06:03:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57K3TV27776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57K3Lt27738 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:03:22 +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 f57K2Ae58763 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607155927.00a98ba0@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, 07 Jun 2001 16:02:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Confused by Richard's double-post, I replied privately before I discovered that his message had also been sent to the list, so I am forwarding that reply to all, just in case anyone else is interested. >At 06:47 PM 6/6/01, you wrote: > >>In the thread *Asking about an Alert*, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >> >I know several players locally (I am one of them) who >> >already play a lot less duplicate than they otherwise >> >might because they are not willing to commit four >> >hours to playing 26 deals, which they can easily do >> >in under an hour and a half with their friends at home. >> >>Why is ACBL-land so slow? Of the three ABF-affiliated >>clubs in Canberra, two play 24-deal sessions in three >>hours, while the other plays 28-deal sessions in three >>and a half hours. > >Can't speak for ACBL-land in general, but where I play, before game >time everyone hangs around, chatting, shmoozing, getting refreshments, >etc. until about 5 minutes before the announced start, when folks >start queuing up to buy entries. At game time, alleged last call for >entries is announced, and the rush for the queue is on. For the next >10-15 minutes, entries are taken as latecomers join the line (and are >served), then seeding begins. It takes about 10 minutes to seed the >game, during which time a few more latecomers arrive and are sold >entries, with the seeding adjusted accordingly (this is exacerbated by >the fact that the latecomers are disporportionally the higher seeded >pairs, who are confident that they will not be turned away -- not that >anyone else would be either). Then the entries are distributed, >everyone mills about finding their seats, boards are distributed, >duplicated and moved (all together, another 10 minutes or so), and >play begins a minimum of a half-hour after the published start >time. The play period consists of 13 rounds at 15 minutes each, 12 >interregnums for E-W pairs to move to the next table at one minute >each, and two "hospitality" (smoking) breaks at five minutes >each. The last card is played more than four hours after the official >start of the event. > >In contrast, when my wife and I sit in our den playing with our >friends, we get in a minimum of 15 boards per hour, complete with >chatting and shmoozing, refreshments (dummy fetches) and smoking (at >the table). /eric 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 Jun 8 06:49:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57KmxF06957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:48:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f57Kmht06953 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive50u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.30]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15956; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00b001c0ef93$50436940$1e14f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Gordon Bower" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Salvaging a movement Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 16:49:12 -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 If I were pair 4 and had just picked up 1700 on the first board, seen them fail to bid a cold slam on the second, then defended brilliantly on the third board to hold 3n to 400 when much of the field was making 430 or 460 I would be very miffed at having these results thrown out so that I could play 3 more boards. I do not think that this was a good solution. I am not sure, but I suspect there may have been another set of three boards that neither 4 nor 5 was normally scheduled to play. Why not substitute those for 25-27 when they meet and let the result of 4 vs 6 stand as played. It means a lot of factoring, but surely you are using computer scoring anyway so that should be just a minor nuisance. I'm interested to hear what wiser (if not older) heads have to say. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:47 PM Subject: [BLML] Salvaging a movement > > I ran into an unusual situation for the first time this past Tuesday. I > had a table play the wrong set of boards in the first round of my game, > the error not discovered until the third round of the game. Normally this > results in awarding a slew of average-plusses, several late plays, and at > least one round's worth of boards needing factored. > > Movement was a 5 1/2 table Appendix Howell with pair 11 stationary where > pair 7 began. Pairs 4 and 6 played boards 25-27 instead of 13-15 the first > round. The problem was discovered in round 3 when I noticed there weren't > enough scores on the board 13 traveller. Boards 25-27 were not due to be > played for the first (proper) time until round 5. Pair 6 was scheduled to > sit out boards 25-27 anyway. Pair 4 v 5 were to play 25-27 in round 6. > > Now, I *could* apply the standard solution here, giving A+ to pair 5 and > factoring 25-27.But I decided that was an unnecessary inconvenience to > pair 5: instead I had 25-27 reshuffled and put into play as scheduled. No > factoring. 4v6 of course had late plays on 13-15. > > At the time I was asked whether it was legal for me to do this. I, to be > honest, wasn't sure whether it was or not but decided it was the practical > way to continued the game with the least possible damage to the movement. > > On reflection I've concluded it *was* legal. L15A1: If players play a > board not designed for them to play in the current round, the director > normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have[sic] > previously played the board. L6D3: Subject to L22A (Passed-out deals > aren't redealt) there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when required by > the Director for any reason compatible with the laws. > > Far as I can tell, L15A1 merely suggests I allow scores to stand if I > don't have any reason to do something different and in this case, avoiding > wasting pair 5's time and depriving them of 3 deals they came to play is a > reason to do something different. > > Is that how the rest of you interpret the situation or not? > > GRB > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 8 08:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57MZYF14315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:35:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f57MZRt14282 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:35:28 +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 SAA13337 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA02930 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:34:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:34:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106072234.SAA02930@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Salvaging a movement X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > If I were pair 4 and.... Well, at least Gordon's solution makes the pairs who created the problem the ones who suffer. If he didn't want to mess with late plays, he could have given them avg-. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 8 09:28:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57NRuL18831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:27:56 +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 f57NRnt18827 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:27:51 +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 1589Ak-0008dp-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:26:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:25:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Salvaging a movement References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Gordon Bower writes > >I ran into an unusual situation for the first time this past Tuesday. I >had a table play the wrong set of boards in the first round of my game, >the error not discovered until the third round of the game. Normally this >results in awarding a slew of average-plusses, several late plays, and at >least one round's worth of boards needing factored. > >Movement was a 5 1/2 table Appendix Howell with pair 11 stationary where >pair 7 began. Pairs 4 and 6 played boards 25-27 instead of 13-15 the first >round. The problem was discovered in round 3 when I noticed there weren't >enough scores on the board 13 traveller. Boards 25-27 were not due to be >played for the first (proper) time until round 5. Pair 6 was scheduled to >sit out boards 25-27 anyway. Pair 4 v 5 were to play 25-27 in round 6. > >Now, I *could* apply the standard solution here, giving A+ to pair 5 and >factoring 25-27.But I decided that was an unnecessary inconvenience to >pair 5: instead I had 25-27 reshuffled and put into play as scheduled. No >factoring. 4v6 of course had late plays on 13-15. > >At the time I was asked whether it was legal for me to do this. I, to be >honest, wasn't sure whether it was or not but decided it was the practical >way to continued the game with the least possible damage to the movement. > I think this is perfectly reasonable, and legal. I have in the past cancelled a result on a board and required it to be redealt - and no doubt will do so again. The TD is responsible for the smooth running of the event, and that is what you achieved. -- 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 Jun 8 09:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f57Nw5818849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:58:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f57Nvwt18845 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:57:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f57Nt8v08301 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001d01c0ef2d$e931dda0$8ca0883e@default> References: <001d01c0ef2d$e931dda0$8ca0883e@default> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:47:54 -0400 To: "BLML" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:42 AM +0100 6/7/01, larry bennett wrote: >Here too, that sort of timing would not be >acceptable. >Last night at the club I had a 9 Mitchell >(switched) and a 10 Howell playing duplicated >boards. They finished in 3.20 (27 bds) and 3.15 >(26 bds) respectively. I had the boards etc >away, the result and master-points printed and >was in my car after 3.35 >This was not considered abnormal. My experience in England was that the club game at which I played regularly was very smoothly and efficiently run. The director often (always?) played as well as directing, but that didn't seem to slow things down any - and we always had a 15 minute hospitality break in the middle of the session. Around a dozen tables, iirc. Here, the club game at which I usually play (I'd be there now except my partner cancelled on me at the last minute) runs 2 sections of up to about 12 or 13 tables, sometimes as few as 8 to 10. The movement is almost always an 8 round straight or relay Mitchell, three boards per round. It's as if 24 boards is a *requirement*. The advertised starting time is 7:15, but we rarely start before 7:30, and sometimes later. I almost never hear the round called. I put it that way because it's quite possible that I sometimes don't hear it because I'm concentrating on my hand, but I'm also certain that sometimes the TD doesn't call it at all. I think basically he wakes up, realizes he should have already called the round, looks, sees most people are already moving or have moved, and doesn't bother. Sometimes I hear "you should all be moving for the next round." :-( Nominally, we should finish at about 10 PM, which leaves plenty of time for cleanup - - we're supposed to be gone by 11. But it's often 10:30 or later before the last round is done. No hospitality break. One thing the TD at the English club where I played did that would help here is that he would not let people start until he announced the beginning of the first round - after making whatever announcements he had. Here, the usual scenario is that people finish making the boards, and *immediately* start playing - the faster ones, anyway. The rest look around, see people are playing, and *then* start. Then, sometime during the first couple of rounds, TD stands up and says "while it's quiet, I have a couple of announcements..." :-( I've suggested to the TD that he not do that. He graciously listened, made no comment, and continues to do things "his way." Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOyAUwb2UW3au93vOEQJbPACg2N0YDt9CMZXveWcglf5myUo2O3MAn0lf he19/remFwZPiFNEc1DKlXSb =O3bk -----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 Jun 8 10:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f580Ak022421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:10:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f580Aet22389 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:10:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f58059v10980; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010607143833.0086bcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010607143833.0086bcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:56:54 -0400 To: alain gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Cc: "Marvin L. French" , Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:38 PM +0200 6/7/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : I'd love that ! In Belgium, 90% of the field would be penalized, that >is, the first 2 or 3 occurrences at least. But what would you do about the >few that found a partner at the desk ? Hm. To avoid penalizing so many the first couple of times, at least in club games, you could announce that beginning with the next meeting, the regulation will be enforced. Some, at least, would probably take the time to ensure they both have cards by then. In tournaments, the requirement is part of the conditions of contest, which IMO ought to be (a) well published before hand, and (b) posted in a highly visible and accessible spot on site (two things that don't seem to happen around here, at least up to regional level). As for partnership desks, how about "players presenting themselves at the partnership desk as available for play shall have *two* copies of their preferred CC(s), shall provide one to their prospective partner, and shall ensure that any changes agreed are clearly marked on *both* copies before play begins"? Copy machines would be useful. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOyAXEr2UW3au93vOEQKAeQCgruyD2KYtPTqaB6TyhwZZcWSeovQAoNLo qq006A9/0P+6bm+RwlYMnbkQ =xNDW -----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 Jun 8 10:29:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f580TId28952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:29:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f580TBt28912 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:29:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-31.elendil.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.183.31] helo=default) by mail6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 158A87-0001VX-00; Fri, 08 Jun 2001 01:27:59 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c0efb1$e36b8c20$1fb7883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: "BLML" , "Ed Reppert" References: <001d01c0ef2d$e931dda0$8ca0883e@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 01:27:22 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would only play where a) some one was spare, and b) that did not create a half table, and c) there was only one section, d) that was a very small section. I believe that however good at either or both, one cannot play and direct efficiently. lnb ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: BLML Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 9:42 AM +0100 6/7/01, larry bennett wrote: > >Here too, that sort of timing would not be > >acceptable. > >Last night at the club I had a 9 Mitchell > >(switched) and a 10 Howell playing duplicated > >boards. They finished in 3.20 (27 bds) and 3.15 > >(26 bds) respectively. I had the boards etc > >away, the result and master-points printed and > >was in my car after 3.35 > >This was not considered abnormal. > > My experience in England was that the club game at which I played > regularly was very smoothly and efficiently run. The director often > (always?) played as well as directing, but that didn't seem to slow > things down any - and we always had a 15 minute hospitality break in > the middle of the session. Around a dozen tables, iirc. > > Here, the club game at which I usually play (I'd be there now except > my partner cancelled on me at the last minute) runs 2 sections of up > to about 12 or 13 tables, sometimes as few as 8 to 10. The movement > is almost always an 8 round straight or relay Mitchell, three boards > per round. It's as if 24 boards is a *requirement*. The advertised > starting time is 7:15, but we rarely start before 7:30, and sometimes > later. I almost never hear the round called. I put it that way > because it's quite possible that I sometimes don't hear it because > I'm concentrating on my hand, but I'm also certain that sometimes the > TD doesn't call it at all. I think basically he wakes up, realizes he > should have already called the round, looks, sees most people are > already moving or have moved, and doesn't bother. Sometimes I hear > "you should all be moving for the next round." :-( Nominally, we > should finish at about 10 PM, which leaves plenty of time for cleanup > - - we're supposed to be gone by 11. But it's often 10:30 or later > before the last round is done. No hospitality break. > > One thing the TD at the English club where I played did that would > help here is that he would not let people start until he announced > the beginning of the first round - after making whatever > announcements he had. Here, the usual scenario is that people finish > making the boards, and *immediately* start playing - the faster ones, > anyway. The rest look around, see people are playing, and *then* > start. Then, sometime during the first couple of rounds, TD stands > up and says "while it's quiet, I have a couple of announcements..." > :-( I've suggested to the TD that he not do that. He graciously > listened, made no comment, and continues to do things "his way." > > > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use > > iQA/AwUBOyAUwb2UW3au93vOEQJbPACg2N0YDt9CMZXveWcg lf5myUo2O3MAn0lf > he19/remFwZPiFNEc1DKlXSb > =O3bk > -----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-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 Fri Jun 8 11:08:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5818Ot12767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:08:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5818It12735 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:08:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5816p809900 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:06:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:07:11 +1000 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-X-Sender: To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607155927.00a98ba0@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 06:47 PM 6/6/01, you wrote: > > > >Can't speak for ACBL-land in general, but where I play, before game > >time everyone hangs around, chatting, shmoozing, getting refreshments, > >etc. until about 5 minutes before the announced start, when folks > >start queuing up to buy entries. At game time, alleged last call for > >entries is announced, and the rush for the queue is on. For the next > >10-15 minutes, entries are taken as latecomers join the line (and are > >served), then seeding begins. This procedure seems designed to slow the evening down. There is no incentive for people to be punctual at all. It's absolutely standard for players at a walk-in event in Austalia to walk in at game time, put some amount of money in an envelope at the table they chose themselves and wait for the TD / club official who can't stand partner mangling their dummy to collect fees & give change during the first round of play. The same applies for the vast majority of congresses. At nationals you've either pre-entered pre-paid or can sort things out at a desk *outside* of game time. > >It takes about 10 minutes to seed the > >game, during which time a few more latecomers arrive and are sold > >entries, with the seeding adjusted accordingly (this is exacerbated by > >the fact that the latecomers are disporportionally the higher seeded > >pairs, who are confident that they will not be turned away -- not that > >anyone else would be either). Then the entries are distributed, > >everyone mills about finding their seats, boards are distributed, > >duplicated and moved (all together, another 10 minutes or so), and > >play begins a minimum of a half-hour after the published start > >time. Events that need to be seeded need to have pre-entry to solve this situation. I remain sceptical that your club walk-in needs to be explicitly seeded :) Pre-duplicated boards would obviously save you some time there but that's by no means standard around Australia either. Only one of the clubs Richard mentioned has pre-duplicated boards and only then for "championship" events. > >The play period consists of 13 rounds at 15 minutes each, 12 > >interregnums for E-W pairs to move to the next table at one minute > >each, and two "hospitality" (smoking) breaks at five minutes > >each. The last card is played more than four hours after the official > >start of the event. > > > >In contrast, when my wife and I sit in our den playing with our > >friends, we get in a minimum of 15 boards per hour, complete with > >chatting and shmoozing, refreshments (dummy fetches) and smoking (at > >the table). /eric Well if the above practices you describe are standard then coupled with system restrictions I think we have a good idea why some may be disatisfied with the state of things in the US of A. Mark -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 8 11:59:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f581x9A29256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:59:09 +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-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 f581x2t29223 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:59:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 158BXE-000KWy-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:58:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 20:20:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 References: <003b01c0eeb3$57de0a60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010607143833.0086bcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010607143833.0086bcb0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 11:05 6/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: >>"Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain >>view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." >> >>I wish they would do that! > >AG : I'd love that ! In Belgium, 90% of the field would be penalized, that >is, the first 2 or 3 occurrences at least. But what would you do about the >few that found a partner at the desk ? Tell them to write fast. Anyone can write a CC out in ten minutes, and the sort of CC you play with a pickup pd, considerably less than that. In practice, like other things a TD does, commonsense is generally applied. You make the announcement, you write on notices, put them on the walls - and then you allow thirty minutes before you do anything. Now *no-one* has an excuse. -- 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 Jun 8 12:33:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f582We509444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:32:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f582WYt09440 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:32:35 +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 TAA09891; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:31:19 -0700 Message-Id: <200106080231.TAA09891@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:20:42 BST." Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:31:19 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > alain gottcheiner writes > >At 11:05 6/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >>It is appropriate to announce at the start of a session things like: > >>"Anyone who does not have a convention card on the table in plain > >>view, legible and completed, will be given a procedural penalty." ^^^^^^^ > >> > >>I wish they would do that! > > > >AG : I'd love that ! In Belgium, 90% of the field would be penalized, that > >is, the first 2 or 3 occurrences at least. But what would you do about the > >few that found a partner at the desk ? > > Tell them to write fast. Tell them to write fast *and* legibly? At the same time? Wow, you ask a lot of your players. :) -- 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 Jun 8 16:29:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f586TMC02412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:29:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta01.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f586TGt02380 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:29:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.34.200.35]) by mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010608062805.PSFA351.mta01.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:28:05 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 16:27:16 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to BLML. TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South North Q 10 7 6 4 A 10 6 3 J 9 9 6 West East K 2 8 4 K Q 8 7 2 A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 South A J 9 5 3 J 9 5 K 10 8 7 A The bidding went West North East South -- -- -- 1S 5C .....pass pass X all pass In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding 5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different auction but played it undoubled. Contrary opinions welcomed please, 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 Fri Jun 8 16:35:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f586ZEd04497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:35:14 +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 f586Z7t04461 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:35:07 +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 f586Z0a19677 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00dd01c0efe4$f0efc040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200106071914.PAA02778@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:33:29 -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" > > Marvin L. French wrote: (Anaheim NABC Appeals casebook) > > > >Case 13 was... > > Is the casebook available online? I don't see it in the "members" > area. It takes quite a while for a casebook to make it onto the ACBL website. Whether this is to increase casebook sales or because Chyah and Kent Burgardt are always extremely burdened with other tasks, I don't know. The most recent casebook on the website is for San Antonio, with Boston and Cincinnati to be provided before they get to Anaheim. > If not, could someone provide a cross-reference to the same > appeal in the Daily Bulletin? (We won't have the expert commentary > there, but at least we can see the deal and the decision.) I used to do cross-references on rgb, but haven't done it lately. Many casebook cases don't make it into the Daily Bulletin, for many good reasons. The Bulletin's numbering system is as they come, while the casebook sorts cases into classifications of tempo, MI, etc., so naturally the case numbers are different. Anyway, here is the cross reference. Anything for you, Steve. Only 7 of 48 appeals made it into the Daily Bulletin. Bulletin # Bulletin Date Casebook # 1 Aug 16 22 2 Aug 16 28 3 Aug 16 27 4 Aug 18 44 5 Aug 18 2 6 Aug 19 3 7 Aug 19 29 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 Jun 8 18:43:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f588gfb02293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:42:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f588gat02267 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:42:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p100-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.210.100]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id UAA04250 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:41:24 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p100-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.210.100] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010608203759.00a4b810@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop3.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 20:39:01 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Neither Julie nor myself think this was a 75% action Regards Patrick At 16:27 8/06/01 +1000, you wrote: >Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. >However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to >BLML. >TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > >The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass > >In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or >regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a >deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding >5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of >peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called >as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK >and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery >to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. >The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different >auction but played it undoubled. > >Contrary opinions welcomed please, > >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 Fri Jun 8 20:16:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58ADlj24606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f58ADft24602 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:13:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from pavilion ([210.54.64.179]) by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010608101413.WSVP1649938.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@pavilion> for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:14:13 +1200 Message-ID: <006f01c0f003$ae52bd40$b34036d2@pavilion> From: "DerekMalloch" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:13:34 +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 I would rule this one back to 5 C undoubled , the call in question does not meet the 75 % rule, Pass is a LA . regards Derek ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:27 PM Subject: [BLML] An appeal to BLML > Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. > However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to > BLML. > TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > > The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass > > In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or > regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a > deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding > 5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of > peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called > as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK > and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery > to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. > The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different > auction but played it undoubled. > > Contrary opinions welcomed please, > > 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 Fri Jun 8 20:38:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58AceO24651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:38:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58AcZt24647 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:38:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.9.215]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010608103722.NSPQ285.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:37:22 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c0f007$a79e9880$d709ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:42:00 +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 5C not doubled. South has no more than he promised and does not have 3 quick tricks to defeat the contract. Definitely not a 75% action IMO. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:27 AM Subject: [BLML] An appeal to BLML > Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. > However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to > BLML. > TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > > The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass > > In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or > regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a > deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding > 5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of > peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called > as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK > and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery > to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. > The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different > auction but played it undoubled. > > Contrary opinions welcomed please, > > 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 Fri Jun 8 20:54:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58Arvb24668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:53:57 +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 f58Arpt24664 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 20:53:52 +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 MAA16413; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:52:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA04575; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:52:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010608125645.008669e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:56:45 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:27 8/06/01 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: >TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > >The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass AG : it doesn't seem right to state X is a 75% action. South's opening is no more than a minimum, it is about what North should expect in terms of playing strngth, both in offense and defense, and if North couldn't take any action I don't see why South should overrule him. After all, South can't be sure of making three tricks, can he ? Yes, he has two aces, and he won't always have them. But this isn't enough to make 5C a majority action. If N/S routinely open all sucking 10-counts, the ruling might be different. 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 Jun 8 22:00:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58C0Is24705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:00:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58C0Bt24701 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:00:12 +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 NAA24676; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:58:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA22111; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:58:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010608140307.00866720@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 14:03:07 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:31 1/06/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >Proposal: Modify L16A in the next version of TFLB by removing the >words "a question, a reply to a question" and substituting "the manner >in which a question is asked or a reply given". AG : if you mean that a neutral question will be a priori considered as containing no UI, but that an oriented question often will, I think this is a very good idea ; it will not however, solve all problems when you are faced with somebody who gives requested information droplet after droplet. Perhaps one should add that oriented questions won't be considered to give UI if there is evidence that the opponents didn't fully disclose at first ask. One more problem could arise with people who demand that a range be given in HCP, their opponents insisting in giving answers in tricks or suit quality. If the first response to a question is deemed sufficient, a repetition of the same question could be treated as oriented question Wording will have to be very careful to make provision for all those cases. 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 Jun 8 22:26:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58CQ1J03537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:26:01 +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-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 f58CPst03497 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:25:54 +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 f58COes02582 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:24:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010608081719.00b18440@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, 08 Jun 2001 08:25:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Posting protocol Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I, and, I expect, others of us, have occasional trouble distinguishing private replies to our BLML posts from public ones, occasionally sending what should be private re-replies to the list or vice versa. This is a particular problem when messages are sent from proxy-firewalled networks, producing obscure and hard-to-read header blocks (most mail clients don't reproduce the entire header block without special action). To help keep the confusion level down, I recommend that when anyone sends a private reply to public post they signal their intent by deleting the "[BLML]" from the subject line. 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 Jun 8 22:43:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58Ch0Z09530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:43:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f198.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58Cgrt09489 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:42:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:41:37 -0700 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:41:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:41:37 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2001 12:41:37.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BF68DA0:01C0F018] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Another vote for disallowing the pass here, I'm afraid. Minimum opener, no reason to expect to defeat the contract other than partner's hesitation. >From: "Anne Jones" >To: "BLML" >Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML >Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:42:00 +0100 > >5C not doubled. >South has no more than he promised and does not have 3 quick tricks to >defeat the contract. Definitely not a 75% action IMO. >Anne >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tony Musgrove" >To: >Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:27 AM >Subject: [BLML] An appeal to BLML > > > > Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. > > However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to > > BLML. > > TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > > > North > > Q 10 7 6 4 > > A 10 6 3 > > J 9 > > 9 6 > > West East > > K 2 8 > > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > > South > > A J 9 5 3 > > J 9 5 > > K 10 8 7 > > A > > > > The bidding went > > West North East South > > -- -- -- 1S > > 5C .....pass pass X > > all pass > > > > In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or > > regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a > > deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about >bidding > > 5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of > > peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called > > as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK > > and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery > > to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. > > The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different > > auction but played it undoubled. > > > > Contrary opinions welcomed please, > > > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jun 8 22:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58CnbB11828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:49:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f58CnTt11787 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:49:30 +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 158LgW-000AOb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:48:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:47:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. >However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to >BLML. >TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > >The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass > >In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or >regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a >deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding >5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of >peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called >as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK >and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery >to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. >The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different >auction but played it undoubled. > >Contrary opinions welcomed please, > >Tony (Sydney) > I think the double's ok - it's anybody's hand and you're pretty confident there are no overtricks. I don't think pass is a LA that will be selected by many. However I'm always soft on UI and harsh on MI, so I could get out-voted. 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 Jun 9 00:14:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58EDUw11516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:13:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f58EDJt11461 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:13:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.133]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f58EC6c11260 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:12:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B20D3C0.CB04F633@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:31:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607083439.00b1f380@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 06:57 AM 6/6/01, Herman wrote: > > >Indeed. Rational lines. But you are including lines that > >are irrational, or become so if we allow declarer a second > >look at the 26 cards. > > Herman has found the nub of our disagreement. or our agreement, as you wish. > I believe that given the > claimer's hand, the dummy's hand and the play up to the point of the > claim (and, conceivably, the auction), some of the subsequent lines of > play are rational ones, the others are not (this is true whether or not > one believes that which are which depend on the class of player > involved). I do not believe that introducing a presumption that > declarer would have studied his cards more carefully before playing on > than he did before claiming moves any of those lines from one category > to the other. > Exactly. And so, whether the claim is for 10 tricks or 9, if 9 tricks are available on every normal line, the fact that declarer claims 10 of them does not mean we force irrational lines onto him that yield only 8. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 00:14:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58EDRa11500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:13:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58EDHt11448 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:13:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.133]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f58EC2c11216 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:12:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B20D303.AB48B0E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:28:35 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 08:42 7/06/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 06:57 AM 6/6/01, Herman wrote: > > > >>Indeed. Rational lines. But you are including lines that > >>are irrational, or become so if we allow declarer a second > >>look at the 26 cards. > > Do we have to ? Aren't we supposed to assume that, upon claiming, the > declarer has performed as much analysis as he felt necessary to do ? After > all, a claim is equivalent to the statement that 'after having analysed the > deal, I decide that I will make n tricks' (possibly contingent on a finesse > or anything). No, a claim is a statement that says "I think play is effectively over", after which - it indeed is. The definition of a claim is such that "any such statement is a claim and halts play". That means that it is possible for someone to claim WITHOUT making an analysis. > Why should we allow him to change opinions ? > He has not yet given an opinion - well yes, a wrong one - and a clearly wrong one at that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 00:33:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58EWqa18240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:32:52 +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 f58EWjt18201 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:32:46 +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 f58EVVe31527 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 10:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010608102120.00b27820@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, 08 Jun 2001 10:32:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: [BLML] Hare and Tortoise In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010607155927.00a98ba0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:07 PM 6/7/01, Mark wrote: >I remain sceptical that your club walk-in needs to be >explicitly seeded :) Just FTR, it does. "My club" is the weekly Thursday night Washington Bridge League unit game, which is of comparable size to and significantly better quality than the average "major event" at ACBL Sectional tournaments (usually three sections in the "big game", plus separate I/N games). The Washington DC area seems to be pretty much unique in the ACBL in that our best players are active (some as organizers as well as players) at the local level. Most of our area's top pros (e.g. Robinson, Boyd, Sukonek, Lublin) play almost every Thursday night. Our players are serious about seeding, and polls taken by our Board of Directors have found that they prefer to have the game seeded carefully and correctly than to short-cut the process in order to have the game start closer to on time. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 01:18:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58FI8a04227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:18:09 +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-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 f58FI1t04180 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:18:02 +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 f58FGn648355 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:16:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010608110141.00b248c0@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, 08 Jun 2001 11:17:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010608140307.00866720@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010601112006.00ab58e0@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010601162007.008608c0@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 08:03 AM 6/8/01, alain wrote: >AG : if you mean that a neutral question will be a priori considered as >containing no UI, but that an oriented question often will, I think >this is >a very good idea ; it will not however, solve all problems when you are >faced with somebody who gives requested information droplet after droplet. >Perhaps one should add that oriented questions won't be considered to give >UI if there is evidence that the opponents didn't fully disclose at >first ask. >One more problem could arise with people who demand that a range be given >in HCP, their opponents insisting in giving answers in tricks or suit >quality. If the first response to a question is deemed sufficient, a >repetition of the same question could be treated as oriented question Alain understands my intention perfectly, and the additional points he raises are certainly ones that ought to be carefully considered. >Wording will have to be very careful to make provision for all those >cases. That's true, but we cannot and should not expect The Law to do this. The wording in TFLB need only be sufficiently general and flexible to allow NCBOs to provide such carefully worded rules and guidelines as are appropriate to their players (as much as I, being an ACBL member, wish that it might be otherwise). 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 Jun 9 01:29:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58FT9304591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:29:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f58FT2t04558 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:29:03 +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 f58FRo649387 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:27:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010608112540.00aba250@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, 08 Jun 2001 11:28:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B20D303.AB48B0E3@village.uunet.be> References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@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 09:28 AM 6/8/01, Herman wrote: >No, a claim is a statement that says "I think play is >effectively over", after which - it indeed is. >The definition of a claim is such that "any such statement >is a claim and halts play". >That means that it is possible for someone to claim WITHOUT >making an analysis. Of course it's possible (just as it's possible for someone to play a hand out without making an analysis), but why on Earth would we want to interpret the law in such a way as to mitigate the consequences of doing so? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 01:30:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58FTwf04869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f58FTpt04834 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:29:51 +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 RAA25495; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:28:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA19552; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:28:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 17:32:40 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B20D303.AB48B0E3@village.uunet.be> References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:28 8/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >alain gottcheiner wrote: >> Do we have to ? Aren't we supposed to assume that, upon claiming, the >> declarer has performed as much analysis as he felt necessary to do ? After >> all, a claim is equivalent to the statement that 'after having analysed the >> deal, I decide that I will make n tricks' (possibly contingent on a finesse >> or anything). > >No, a claim is a statement that says "I think play is >effectively over", after which - it indeed is. >The definition of a claim is such that "any such statement >is a claim and halts play". >That means that it is possible for someone to claim WITHOUT >making an analysis. AG : what about a rephrasing as : 'It's clear that I will make n tricks (possibly contingent) and the deal doesn't need any more thinking about' ? In which case, doing only a scrap of (more or less subtle) analysis thereafter contradicts the principle of claiming. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 01:49:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58FnJS11619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:49:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58FnCt11591 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:49:13 +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 LAA05655 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA12219 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:48:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106081548.LAA12219@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Many replies along the same lines: > Another vote for disallowing the pass here, I'm afraid. Minimum opener, no > reason to expect to defeat the contract other than partner's hesitation. I agree with everyone else that pass is a LA, but I'm wondering about: > > North is a > > deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time... Just how long is "considerable time?" I realize the 10-s rule isn't in effect, but it's still normal to take a few seconds in this auction, even with a pretty terrible hand. I suppose the pause rules out a flat Yarborough, but is that enough for "suggested over another?" If, on the other hand, the "considerable time" was 10 s or more, then it certainly suggests action, and I agree that the double can't be allowed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 03:56:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58Hu8425815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 03:56:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58Hu1t25778 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 03:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-030.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.222]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA70565 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:54:43 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:55:19 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F04C.901EEB20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:55:18 +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 -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove [SMTP:ardelm@ozemail.com.au] Sent: 08 June 2001 07:27 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to BLML. TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South North Q 10 7 6 4 A 10 6 3 J 9 9 6 West East K 2 8 4 K Q 8 7 2 A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 South A J 9 5 3 J 9 5 K 10 8 7 A The bidding went West North East South -- -- -- 1S 5C .....pass pass X all pass In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding 5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different auction but played it undoubled. Contrary opinions welcomed please, Tony (Sydney) It looks like the TD established the fact that there was a Hesitation and that possible UI was transmitted. This UI does suggest Double over the LA of Pass so rolling it back to 5C is a good ruling. 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 Jun 9 05:18:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58JHXw24474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:17:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58JHMt24415 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:17:23 +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 LAA12485 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:16:07 -0800 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:14:32 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well, long as you're after contrary opinions.... If you don't play forcing passes, North is the one in a position to decide to try a double, on the basis that his partner has an honest opening bid - once upon a time, back in the dark ages, opening bids promised two quick tricks. That is, North is going to double 5C on most hands with one sure trick or two probable tricks in his hand. Once North passes, South has one sure trick, one reasonably hopeful trick (SA) and one 50-50 or worse shot at a trick (DK). That plus an expectation of half a defensive trick from North makes passing vs doubling more or less a crapshoot. Pass is very much a LA and in my club there would be more passers than doublers. So for me, it is an adjustment to 200. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 07:05:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58L4io04179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:04:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f58L4at04172 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 07:04:37 +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, 8 Jun 2001 13:59:12 -0700 Message-ID: <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 14:01:39 -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" > > I believe that the AC's decision is logical only given that they > accepted the key assumption on which Marv based his argument. Had the > committee believed that a hesitation is merely a procedural violation, > but that such violations are subject to a PP, then they were indeed > acting illogically: either the player hesitated, in which case they > should have adjusted the score and given the PP, or he didn't, in which > case they should have done neither, as Alain says. Eric knows that it is not the hesitation that is an infraction, but the illegal use of that UI. What he means, I'm sure, is that if there was a hesitation, then North committed an illegal action by reopening with a lousy hand and a score adjustment is in order. This offense was so bad that some sort of disciplinary action might have been in order. However the purpose of PPs is not to discipline players (see below) > > The actual ruling can only be explained if the AC believed, as Marv > accuses, that PPs should be treated as essentially disciplinary in > nature. NABC Appeals Administrator Rich Colker wrote in the Anaheim casebook (Case 22): "PPs are disciplinary in nature..." It seems that all NABC ACs and TD panels share that opinion. With no significant change in the text of L90 since 1963, it seems odd that the practice of using PPs for disciplinary purposes did not develop until recently (in ACBL-land, anyway). The only significant change to the law since 1963 was that its title was changed in 1975 from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties." Did that mean nothing? To me it meant "Go to L91 for disciplinary penalties." Except for egregious offenses that are covered by L91, discipline should take place outside the game, not within the game (i.e., not on the score sheet). Procedural offenses, such as those typified by L90B, are subject to a score penalty. Note that none of them imply unethical behavior (which might warrant disciplinary action), and all of them are unique to duplicate bridge. Let's get something straight. If my partnership gets a PP for misduplicating a board, that is not discipline, it's a procedural penalty per L90. L91 is the law that deals with disciplinary measures. Except for L91, the Laws are not concerned with disciplinary matters. But what about offenses that do not justify the harsh measures of L91? If damage results, there is L12 and possibly a lecture. If no damage results, that's usually the end of it, except maybe for a lecture. If the TD feels that a lecture isn't sufficient, then he should be able to say, "I'm writing you up." It is not the job of a TD or AC to discipline players (always excepting L91). We have special committees for that. Maybe in club games a TD/proprietor might say, "I'm barring you for a week." It is understandable that TDs like using PPs for this purpose, as it is so much easier than filling out paperwork. However, disciplinary steps should be documented. The ACBL requires TDs to document Zero Tolerance offenses so that a player getting too many can be known and dealt with. Similarly, too many UI or MI offenses should get a player in front of a C&E committee to explain why this is so. For that, you need documentation. No one is keeping track of the disciplinary PPs being handed out at NABCs. They seem to be assessed only by TD Panels and ACs, not TDs. That means offenders who do not get involved in an appeal get off scot-free. Sorry about the length, but I promise to write no more to BLML on this subject. I'll put all my PP thoughts in a monograph for the BoD & ACBL LC members, and make it available to anyone on rgb and blml who is interested. 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 Jun 9 08:20:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58MJhb06708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:19:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f58MJat06700 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:19:36 +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, 8 Jun 2001 15:14:09 -0700 Message-ID: <007e01c0f068$dcf3bcc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim - Case 13 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 15:17:47 -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 I have been asked about the case 13 hand, which did not appear in the Anaheim Daily Bulletins. Here is case 13 summarized: Vulnerability: N/S Dealer West S- A1086 H- J65 D- 84 C- 7653 S- KJ3 S- 4 H- Q42 H- AK10983 D- AJ103 D- K92 C- AJ8 C- KQ2 S- Q9752 H- 7 D- Q765 C- 1094 The bidding: West North East South 1NT P 2D(1) P 2NT P 3H P 3NT P 4C(2) P 4S P 5H(3) P 6H All pass (1) Game-forcing Stayman (the right name!) (2) Agreed break in tempo (3) Disputed break in tempo Making 6. West stated that 4S showed two aces, although he was unsure that 4C was Gerber. The TD ruled that a break in tempo had occurred that demonstrably expressed interest in further bidding and that pass was an LA. 5H + 6 for both sides. West made some contradictory statements . West had first said to the TD that 4S was a cue bid in support of clubs and hearts, then changed his mind and said it was Gerber, so he had to bid 6H with that Qxx support. E-W had 1000 and 1700 masterpoints, respectively. The AC upheld the TD's ruling. They considered assessing a PP, etc...(as I wrote to BLML). If West had been smarter, IMO there would have been no PP considered. Smart players can get away with murder, dumb ones can't. I didn't quote Bart Bramley's opinion. (Bart is chairman of the Competition and Conventions (C&C) committee.) Here it is: "The Committee was too gentle. Although I am strongly opposed to PPs [ha!--mlf] in most cases, the raise to 6H by West is a strong candidate. West clearly made an ace-showing response to 4C, admitting it only under pressure, then raised a positive signoff. The Committee's grounds for withholding the PP are reasonable (sic), but certainly they should have given E/W an Award Without Merit Warning (AWMW). 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 Jun 9 08:44:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58Mhn707492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:43:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from balder.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@balder.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f58Mhft07483 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 08:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-7-203.inter.net.il [213.8.7.203]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AQZ03841; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:40:55 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3B215537.1958B729@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:44:07 +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 - June 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 32st 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 seventh 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) Alan Hill - Harvey (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 11 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 11:21:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f591KCX12094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:20:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f591K5t12087 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:20:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from master ([63.12.24.91]) by mta05.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010609011853.JFGH10022.mta05.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:18:53 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010609111733.007ed100@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:17:33 +1000 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks for all who replied. I feel thoroughly outvoted. Two supplementary questions..No-one thought that the auction was relevant. Had the auction progressed at a more leasurely pace in which North gets to bid her values in spades, then I agree we could not allow the double by South after the hesitation. However, to my mind, North's hesitation after the immediate 5C preempt, followed by the pass seems to suggest that 5C may be making, and therefoe the only allowable action by South is a double. In anticipation of being shot down yet again, Tony (Sydney) >TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > >The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 11:35:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f591Z0512493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f591Yst12486 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:34:55 +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 f591VoA01281 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:31:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200106081548.LAA12219@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200106081548.LAA12219@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 21:24:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Willner wrote: >If, on the other hand, the "considerable time" was 10 s or more, then >it certainly suggests action, and I agree that the double can't be >allowed. Does it? "North is a deliberate player". Perhaps 10 seconds is a *fast* out of tempo call - for him. The question that needs answering here, seems to me is "was North's pass in tempo, or not, *for him*. If it was in tempo, then whether pass was an LA to double is irrelevant. Unless, as is entirely possible, I'm totally confused. :-) 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/AwUBOyF89r2UW3au93vOEQJimACfZyQ1IE+mf447TngtvlD7hOtA9gEAoIdC fYtv/drPL4A+zK7Rh5LpnQ18 =mE9a -----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 Jun 9 12:11:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f592AuQ13519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:10:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f592Ant13512 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f58JLQb03409 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:21:26 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 19:10:51 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20010609111733.007ed100@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010609111733.007ed100@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01060819212600.02965@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Tony Musgrove wrote: > Thanks for all who replied. I feel thoroughly outvoted. Two supplementary > questions..No-one thought that the auction was relevant. > Had the auction progressed at a more leasurely pace in which North > gets to bid her values in spades, then I agree we could not allow > the double by South after the hesitation. However, to my mind, North's > hesitation after the immediate 5C preempt, followed by the pass seems > to suggest that 5C may be making, and therefoe the only allowable > action by South is a double. > >The bidding went (both vul) > > West North East South > > -- -- -- 1S > > 5C .....pass pass X > > all pass The problem with this interpretation is that if North was considering a bid, he can make the bid when South doubles, and will get a better result than 5C making doubled or undoubled. If North was considering a penalty double, he can pass. Either way, double is likely to work out better than pass, as the slow pass eliminates the risk that North has a weak hand, 5C is making, and any sacrifice will go for a number. If South, with a different hand, had considered bidding 5S, this argument would not apply; 5S would be inferior to pass if North was considering a penalty double, but superior if North was considering a bid. Thus, if a penalty double is likely opposite a given South hand (say six spades and a club void), it could well be ruled that the slow pass did not suggest 5S over pass. -- 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 Jun 9 17:01:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f596xjB11335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:59:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f596xct11331 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:59:39 +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 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:54:15 -0700 Message-ID: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 23:57:51 -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 My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and described a ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. The bidding: West North East South 1NT 2C* 2H** P 3S*** P 4H All pass * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer *** Super accept Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of the deal. Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely improbable even if the MI had been corrected. Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. 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 Jun 9 19:44:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f599hZ502529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 19:43:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f599hRt02522 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 19:43:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.248]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f599gBc17845 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:42:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B21EEC6.91EF353F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:39:18 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@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 No Alain, you still have not understood my point. alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > > >No, a claim is a statement that says "I think play is > >effectively over", after which - it indeed is. > >The definition of a claim is such that "any such statement > >is a claim and halts play". > >That means that it is possible for someone to claim WITHOUT > >making an analysis. > > AG : what about a rephrasing as : 'It's clear that I will make n tricks > (possibly contingent) and the deal doesn't need any more thinking about' ? No, for there to be a claim it is sufficient that claimer says "the deal doesn't need any more thinking about". He does not have to say "and I will make n tricks". I have once claimed, after the lead (because I got called away), without any other statement than "play is not needed - please decide how many tricks I make". While such an action might seem irrational (although it's not), it should not mean that I am now clearly about to make also irrational plays. I realize that this may be too easy - just claim and you are protected from all stupidity - and that is true. But I'm also protected from finding any succeeding finesse, and that's enough to warrant playing on, isn't it. Anyway, Alain, I hope we shall meet over the bridge table this afternoon, because since it's swiss, that will mean I'll be doing well! > In which case, doing only a scrap of (more or less subtle) analysis > thereafter contradicts the principle of claiming. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 19:44:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f599hNQ02518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 19:43:23 +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 f599hEt02511 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 19:43:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-248.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.248]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f599fvc17758 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 11:41:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B21ED7E.2A22B5AA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:33:50 +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: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010608112540.00aba250@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 09:28 AM 6/8/01, Herman wrote: > > >No, a claim is a statement that says "I think play is > >effectively over", after which - it indeed is. > >The definition of a claim is such that "any such statement > >is a claim and halts play". > >That means that it is possible for someone to claim WITHOUT > >making an analysis. > > Of course it's possible (just as it's possible for someone to play a > hand out without making an analysis), but why on Earth would we want to > interpret the law in such a way as to mitigate the consequences of > doing so? > Because that is what the law says : "as equitable as possible". Remember what we are talking of : all lines that would be judged, under normal circumstances, "normal", lead to a particular number of tricks. Only some lines, that under normal circumstances are judged "irrational" lead to fewer tricks. I am saying that those irrational lines remain irrational when it is clear that claimer has not yet made the analysis that will prove them thus. This really is too difficult to explain without examples. Ton's grand slam is a good example of this. Playing 5 rounds of hearts is clearly irrational. Declarer has claimed without making a thorough analysis. That fact does not make the irrational line rational. It is unthinkable that this player would play one card without making the necessary analysis, and he should not pay for his hasty claim by removing his rationality. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 9 23:44:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59DiG406409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f59Di5t06359 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:44:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25998 invoked for bounce); 9 Jun 2001 13:42:49 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-61-220.berlin.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.61.220) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 9 Jun 2001 13:42:49 -0000 Message-ID: <006001c0f0ea$94fd0fc0$dc3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:42:25 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony asked: > Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. > However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to > BLML. > TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > > The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass S has *one* sure trick against 5C, and a minimum 1S opener. Clearly pass in an LA. N's hesitation shows that N has some values and thus demonstrably suggests action is better than passing. I adjust to 5C -3. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 01:57:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59FulK14557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:56:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f59Fubt14543 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:56:39 +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 158l6J-000EKx-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:56:35 +0100 Message-ID: <6ATuHXAWakI7EwT0@asimere.com> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:53:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and described a >ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > >The bidding: > >West North East South > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > 3S*** P 4H All pass > >* Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) >** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer >*** Super accept > >Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 >hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of >the deal. > >Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would >have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely >improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > >Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to >N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. > Regardless of how I would have ruled the table ruling is typical of the arrogant incompetence of ACBL TDs. Is that strong enough, Marv? >Marv >Marvin L. French, ISPE >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 02:23:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59GN6s16089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f59GN0t16084 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP17.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.17]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13155 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:21:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: [BLML] Card named but not played Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 12:21:08 -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 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLers A defender names H10 as the card to be he played to the current trick but put D3 faced up on table. He realy has H10 in hand. Your ruling. 1- The H10 was fisrt named and played according to Law 45C4a. D3 beomes a major penalty card. 2- D3 is the card realy played to the trick (Law 45A) and H10 becomes a penalty card. 3- Other considerations... Any difference if it is the declarer (forgetting the penalty card...). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 02:59:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59GxAC17663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:59:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f59Gx3t17658 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 02:59:04 +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 <20010609165736.MKLJ12600.amsmta02-svc@witz> for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:57:36 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010609185802.011b0990@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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:58:02 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Card named but not played 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 12:21 PM 09-06-01 -0400, you wrote: >Hi BLMLers > >A defender names H10 as the card to be he played to the >current trick but put D3 faced up on table. He realy >has H10 in hand. >Your ruling. > >1- The H10 was fisrt named and played according to > Law 45C4a. D3 beomes a major penalty card. > 1) see 45C4a regards, anton >2- D3 is the card realy played to the trick (Law > 45A) and H10 becomes a penalty card. > >3- Other considerations... > >Any difference if it is the declarer (forgetting >the penalty card...). > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > Anton Witzen. 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 Sun Jun 10 03:02:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59H23817773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:02:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f59H1st17763 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:01:55 +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 158m7j-0001Gs-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:02:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:58:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Card named but not played 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 , Laval Dubreuil writes >Hi BLMLers > >A defender names H10 as the card to be he played to the >current trick but put D3 faced up on table. He realy >has H10 in hand. >Your ruling. > >1- The H10 was fisrt named and played according to > Law 45C4a. D3 beomes a major penalty card. > I would so rule, after asking a few questions. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 05:24:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59JOKc20620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:24:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f59JOCt20578 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:24:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-87-214.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.87.214]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f59JMk526098; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:22:46 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000301c0f119$a79dffc0$d657063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie><4.3.2.7.1.20010604105252.00b0db00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010606082656.00b11590@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:15:36 +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: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > At 05:29 PM 6/4/01, mike wrote: > > >If the topic is now how to change the law could > >someone review for me how the law read in the > >sixties or seventies when the Bridge World's > >Appeals Committee pamphlets were published? IIRC, > >a distinction was drawn between UI from proper and > >improper procedure. In this case, asking correctly > >would impose a burden on partner to avoid a 25% > >suggested action but allowing normal (50%) > >actions. Asking improperly (eg. "does that show > >clubs?") brings something like current LA rules > >into play. This always seemed a reasonable > >distinction but I don't know any of the history > >behind it or subsequent changes. Please, Grattan, > >others. -------------------- \x/ ------------------- > In the ACBL at that time, the law was interpreted > to mean that you could question the opponents' > auction at will but at your own risk; a reply to a > question, correct or not, was considered AI to partner. > Giving misinformation, unless done deliberately, was not > an infraction. > +=+ Maybe so, but that was not quite the law as written: _1963_ "If a player other than declarer conveys information to his partner by means of a remark or an unmistakable gesture or mannerism that suggests a call, lead, or play, or plan of play; and if attention is drawn to the offence and the Director is summoned forthwith.... (various remedies).." So conveying information in asking a question was not a violation of the Law on Unauthorised Information. But.... " The following acts should be avoided and are considered breaches of ethics when committed intentionally: (a) A remark, question, gesture or mannerism which might convey information to partner......... etc" Under this law there was no impropriety if a player asked a question and information was thereby conveyed to partner unless it was done deliberately; but there was a breach of correct procedure, an irregularity. It is interesting that under the 1963 Laws it was conveying improper information that was the irregularity, or could be an infraction. And: "If an irregularity has occurred for which no adequate penalty is assessed by law, he (the Director) may award an adjusted score." I think we can understand why Kaplan was so exercised, and in the 1975 Laws succeeded in having the application of the law moved so that it dealt with actions based upon information improperly received from partner. The argument in this thread has revolved around a desire of some to arrange the law so that a question may be asked without conveying UI; but all we have done to now is to unveil the difficulties in doing so. :-)) One last question: the 1963 laws said : "During the auction (at his turn to call) a player may request an explanation of any conventional call made by an opponent." Hmm... I wonder how he knew which calls were conventional? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- note: a number of us are about to spend a week or two at the Zone 1 Championships in Tenerife. I go earlier than most - on June 12 returning July 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 05:32:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59JWk223549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:32:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f59JWdt23507 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 05:32:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-118-150.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.1.118.150] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f59JVG507022; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:31:16 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001301c0f11a$d7b0b620$d657063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010608081719.00b18440@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Posting protocol Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:31:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 1:25 PM Subject: [BLML] Posting protocol > To help keep the confusion level down, I recommend that when anyone > sends a private reply to public post they signal their intent by > deleting the "[BLML]" from the subject line. > +=+ Or perhaps by inserting '121' in the subject line? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 06:31:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59KVI206167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:31:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f59KVAt06159 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 158pMk-0007Pg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:29:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:08:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <3.0.6.32.20010606161242.00875100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010607142716.00800590@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001d01c0ef79$996b4800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001d01c0ef79$996b4800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >It doesn't speak of damage because L73F addresses violations of any part of >L73, and L73F speaks of damage. L73C tells players what they are required to do. Failure to follow L73C is an infraction, and is thus subject to a penalty under L90A even if there is no damage. -- 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 Jun 10 06:31:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59KVJ606168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:31:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f59KVBt06160 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:31:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 158pMn-0007Ph-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:29:57 +0000 Message-ID: <9IsxyVAtSDI7Ewiy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 03:13:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Salvaging a movement 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 Gordon Bower writes > >I ran into an unusual situation for the first time this past Tuesday. I >had a table play the wrong set of boards in the first round of my game, >the error not discovered until the third round of the game. Normally this >results in awarding a slew of average-plusses, several late plays, and at >least one round's worth of boards needing factored. > >Movement was a 5 1/2 table Appendix Howell with pair 11 stationary where >pair 7 began. Pairs 4 and 6 played boards 25-27 instead of 13-15 the first >round. The problem was discovered in round 3 when I noticed there weren't >enough scores on the board 13 traveller. Boards 25-27 were not due to be >played for the first (proper) time until round 5. Pair 6 was scheduled to >sit out boards 25-27 anyway. Pair 4 v 5 were to play 25-27 in round 6. > >Now, I *could* apply the standard solution here, giving A+ to pair 5 and >factoring 25-27.But I decided that was an unnecessary inconvenience to >pair 5: instead I had 25-27 reshuffled and put into play as scheduled. No >factoring. 4v6 of course had late plays on 13-15. > >At the time I was asked whether it was legal for me to do this. I, to be >honest, wasn't sure whether it was or not but decided it was the practical >way to continued the game with the least possible damage to the movement. > >On reflection I've concluded it *was* legal. L15A1: If players play a >board not designed for them to play in the current round, the director >normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have[sic] >previously played the board. L6D3: Subject to L22A (Passed-out deals >aren't redealt) there must be a new shuffle and a redeal when required by >the Director for any reason compatible with the laws. > >Far as I can tell, L15A1 merely suggests I allow scores to stand if I >don't have any reason to do something different and in this case, avoiding >wasting pair 5's time and depriving them of 3 deals they came to play is a >reason to do something different. > >Is that how the rest of you interpret the situation or not? If I have understood you correctly, two pairs have played three boards, and you have cancelled their scores when you did not have to. No, I would not do that. I do not care whether it is legal or not, you just do not throw out 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 Sun Jun 10 07:04:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59L4FB06197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:04:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f59L48t06193 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:04:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-126-166.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.1.126.166] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f59L2j510967 for ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:02:45 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <002601c0f127$9f89ca40$a67e01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:02:21 +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: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC > > From: "Eric Landau" > Except for egregious offenses > that are covered by L91, > discipline should take place outside the game, not > within the game (i.e., not on the score sheet). > Procedural offenses, such as those typified by L90B, > are > subject to a score penalty. Note that none of them > imply unethical behavior (which might warrant > disciplinary action), and all of them are unique to > duplicate bridge. > +=+ The powers in Law 91 are confined to the maintenance of correct behaviour and good order. They do not relate to violations of the game's procedures, these being the subject matter of Law 90. PPs may be assessed in relation to cases where there is a score adjustment, for example, if it is considered the circumstances warrant it; the considerations may include the quality of the players involved, the ethics of players, the level of their culpability - 'this player should have known better'; the need to put down a marker for the benefit of the players in question, or for players generally. Law 91 penalties are for misconduct extraneous to the play - smoking when it is forbidden, unacceptable language, abuse of a person, leaving the table when it is not appropriate to do so, and so on. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 10 09:15:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f59NF4822379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f59NEvt22341 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:14:57 +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 ; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:09:31 -0700 Message-ID: <004d01c0f139$c3e3f3e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01C0EC59.6F170D00.tsvecfob@iol.ie><4.3.2.7.1.20010604105252.00b0db00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010606082656.00b11590@127.0.0.1> <000301c0f119$a79dffc0$d657063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 16:04:23 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > :-)) One last question: the 1963 laws said : "During > the auction (at his turn to call) a player may request > an explanation of any conventional call made by an > opponent." Hmm... I wonder how he knew which > calls were conventional? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > He looked at the opposing convention card. Alvin Landy (1905-1967), secretary of the National Laws Commission, secretary-treasurer of the WBF (which he helped to establish), and "CEO" (not called that then) of the ACBL, explained Laws regularly in the ACBL *Bridge Bulletin.* He had this to say in regard to the 1963 version: [a player may request an explanation of any conventional call] "if that convention is shown on the convention card. But one cannot question a call that does not seem to be a part of some checked or listed convention." When an opponent of that era asked me about partner Morris Portuagal's call, he said, "Do you know how to answer that? You just say conventional or not conventional." (The call was not conventional) A defender's right to request an explanation expired when the opening lead was made (LC decision in 1965), but defenders could look at the opposing cc at their turn to play. As that approach became a problem, I guess everywhere, the words were changed in 1975 to "a full explanation of any call made by an opponent," and in 1987 to "a full explanation of the opponents' auction." Most players and TDs are still going by the 1975 version. The trickle-down of new Laws is very slow. 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 Jun 10 17:01:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5A70HA02889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:00:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5A709t02885 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:00:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5200 invoked for bounce); 10 Jun 2001 06:58:53 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-61-166.berlin.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.61.166) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 06:58:53 -0000 Message-ID: <011001c0f17b$527bf260$a63d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> <006001c0f0ea$94fd0fc0$dc3d1dc2@rabbit> <000801c0f0ff$cf84fda0$df8cc8d5@chello.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:02:17 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk POSundelin asked: >> Tony asked: >> >> > Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. >> > However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to >> > BLML. >> > TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South >> > >> > North >> > Q 10 7 6 4 >> > A 10 6 3 >> > J 9 >> > 9 6 >> > West East >> > K 2 8 >> > 4 K Q 8 7 2 >> > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 >> > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 >> > South >> > A J 9 5 3 >> > J 9 5 >> > K 10 8 7 >> > A >> > >> > The bidding went >> > West North East South >> > -- -- -- 1S >> > 5C .....pass pass X >> > all pass >> >> S has *one* sure trick against 5C, and a minimum 1S >> opener. Clearly pass in an LA. N's hesitation shows >> that N has some values and thus demonstrably suggests action >> is better than passing. I adjust to 5C -3. >> Thomas >> > Why three down? Because declarer went down three in 5C doubled, and without a description of the play in 5C doubled I see no point in investigating whether it was "likely" that 5C undoubled would was gone down only one or two. Then, this is a pragmatic ruling: remove the impact of the infraction, and let the players' skills decide how much tricks each side gets. > Admittedly a diamond lead, or the HA > followed by a diamond, should give -3. > But other leads, none of them being > strange, will produce two or even one down. > NS should be happy with how you defend for them. > Do the "possible" and "likely" apply here? Yes, they do apply, but it generally is not assumed to be "likely" that the OS will now make errors that they did not make in actual defense against the same contract doubled. 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 Mon Jun 11 01:17:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5AFD1n08744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:13:01 +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-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 f5AFCrt08740 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:12:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-121.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.121]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5AFBXc01530 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:11:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B233B30.383DABEA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:17:36 +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] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B21EEC6.91EF353F@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Anyway, Alain, I hope we shall meet over the bridge table > this afternoon, because since it's swiss, that will mean > I'll be doing well! > Sadly we did not meet. Alain's team came fourth (I believe), and we were ... last ! The name Flipperwaldt did not bring us luck then. Wenn ist das Nunstrück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! ... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! the "funniest joke in the world" as translated into (pseudo-)German Monty Python. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 11 08:23:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5AMMFe01901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:22:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5AMM8t01897 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5AFWdD03922 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:32:39 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:10:28 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01061015323906.03878@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and > described a ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > > The bidding: > > West North East South > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > 3S*** P 4H All pass > > * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > *** Super accept > > Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 > hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of > the deal. > > Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would > have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely > improbable even if the MI had been corrected. First, was there UI? The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it should be an alert here) is UI. However, the 3S response to a natural 2H is impossible, and therefore it carries the AI that West thinks 2H shows spades. Thus East's 4H bid is allowed, and assuming that West does not have any UI (otherwise he must treat 4H as a cue-bid), the auction is valid. Next, was there MI? I don't know the E-W agreements. If the agreement is that transfers are on over Hamilton 2C, then there is no MI, and the result must stand. If there is no agreement, or the agreement is that transfers are off, then there is MI. Assuming that there was MI, what result would be likely if the infraction (failure to correct MI) had not occurred? If South is a good player, there is unlikely to be damage, as he should be able to figure out what is going on from the auction. (I suppose it is possible that East has spades and cue-bid the HA and West passed the cue-bid by mistake, and I would be open to this argument.) Another possible effect of MI: if North's suit was spades, he might have doubled 3S if he had been properly informed. If this is the case, then there probably was damage, as the double of 3S would be likely to lead to a spade lead against 4H. Only after all this do we get to L12C2. Given the information South should have (that East has hearts, and that West has a super-accept of spades), he must decide how likely it is that South would find the spade lead. If your "wildly unlikely" is correct, the score should stand; the director could also rule that it is not likely but is "at all probable", awarding -50 to E-W and -420 to N-S, or that it is likely, awarding -50/+50. If North could have doubled 3S given correct information, then -50/+50 is right. > Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to > N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. This ruling is not supposed to be used when the TD is not sure of the result; he is supposed to rule under L12C2, which most often means giving the NOS the better of two likely results. If there is only one likely result, there is supposed to be no damage. In this case, South may even have been bridge-lawyering; if there had been an appeal, he would have to convince the AC that he couldn't work out the situation from the information he had, as well as that a spade lead would have been likely. I would be strongly inclined to rule that the score stands unless North could have doubled 3S. -- 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 Jun 11 11:26:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5B1PxA02005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:25:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp1.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5B1Pst02001 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:25:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p138-tnt1.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.160.138]) by new-smtp1.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03531 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:24:38 +1000 X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp1.ihug.com.au: Host p138-tnt1.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.160.138] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010611112148.00f06900@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:21:48 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-Reply-To: <01061015323906.03878@psa836> References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:10 10/06/01 +0000, you wrote: >On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and >> described a ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. >> >> The bidding: >> >> West North East South >> 1NT 2C* 2H** P >> 3S*** P 4H All pass >> >> * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) >> ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer >> *** Super accept >> >> Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 >> hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of >> the deal. >> >> Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would >> have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely >> improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > >First, was there UI? The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it >should be an alert here) is UI. However, the 3S response to a natural >2H is impossible, and therefore it carries the AI that West thinks 2H >shows spades. Thus East's 4H bid is allowed, and assuming that West >does not have any UI (otherwise he must treat 4H as a cue-bid), the >auction is valid. If the announcement of 2H is UI to West, then why allow the 3S bid? I would think the most favourable of the likely results without the infraction, for the NOS, is either -170 or -140. Laurie (In 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 Jun 11 12:59:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5B2xK002057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:59:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5B2xEt02053 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:59:14 +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 f5B2tpW26086 for ; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:55:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01061015323906.03878@psa836> References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:54:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it should be an alert here) is UI. It is not clear to me that this is correct. The alert procedure speaks of announcements in regard to three areas, of which transfer responses to a NT opening or overcall is one. In that area, they say nothing about interference. However, in specifying announcement of forcing 1NT responses to 1 of a suit openings, the procedure *does* say "without interference". If it's mentioned here, why not in the other area, unless they did not intend to limit announcements there? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOyQzmL2UW3au93vOEQK4zACguqvW1TEYmiOnfqjuofzo7qoOsaYAn3cu Il5fZlMyms3U1Ugs55Ipf6Vf =wd3t -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 11 13:26:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5B3Q2C02079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:26:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5B3Put02075 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5AKafb00372 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:36:41 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:30:09 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010611112148.00f06900@pop.ihug.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010611112148.00f06900@pop.ihug.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01061020364100.00198@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Laurie Kelso wrote: > At 15:10 10/06/01 +0000, you wrote: > >On Sat, 09 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >> My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and > >> described a ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > >> > >> The bidding: > >> > >> West North East South > >> 1NT 2C* 2H** P > >> 3S*** P 4H All pass > >> > >> * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > >> ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > >> *** Super accept > >> > >> Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 > >> hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of > >> the deal. > >> > >> Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would > >> have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely > >> improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > > > >First, was there UI? The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it > >should be an alert here) is UI. However, the 3S response to a natural > >2H is impossible, and therefore it carries the AI that West thinks 2H > >shows spades. Thus East's 4H bid is allowed, and assuming that West > >does not have any UI (otherwise he must treat 4H as a cue-bid), the > >auction is valid. > > If the announcement of 2H is UI to West, then why allow the 3S bid? I would > think the most favourable of the likely results without the infraction, for > the NOS, is either -170 or -140. An announcement in the ACBL is made by the partner of the bidder, like an alert. Its primary purpose is to avoid certain very common alerts for which people never ask even though the bid can have multiple meanings. When 1NT forcing in response to 1H was alerted, 1NT showing spades received the same alert, and opponents did not ask and often bid or led spades. Therefore, 1NT forcing is announced "forcing" by the bidder's partner, while 1NT showing spades is alerted. (Another announcement is the NT range if it is not 15-17, to discourage players from passing UI by asking the NT range and then passing with a fairly strong hand.) Announcements are only supposed to be made in certain specific situations in which the bidding is routine and there should be no UI problem. A 1NT opening with interference is not one of them. In the example above, West's announcement is UI to East. -- 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 Jun 11 17:48:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5B7m0d02846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:48:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5B7lqt02842 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:47:54 +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 ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:48:00 +0200 Message-ID: <007201c0f24a$bee738e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:20 +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 f5B7ltt02843 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:57 AM Subject: [BLML] San Diego ruling > My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and described a > ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > > The bidding: > > West North East South > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > 3S*** P 4H All pass > > * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > *** Super accept > > Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 > hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of > the deal. > > Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would > have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely > improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > > Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to > N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA Some people seem to think that no UI was given from East to West. I am not sure whether that is true (despite the poker face). My questions: 1. Is a superaccept normally alerted in the ACBL? 2. Wat 3S alerted in this auction? If the answers to these questions are 1. yes and 2. no, UI has been passed from East to West. In that case, it is highly likely that it was the failure to alert that woke up West and a score correction is necessary. When it comes to the 60-40 ruling: I think we all agree that that is not the way to solve these situations. 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 00:34:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BEXje27026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:33:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BEXat26980 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:33:38 +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 QAA26097; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:32:06 +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 QAA04566; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:32:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010611163627.0086c800@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:36:27 +0200 To: Tony Musgrove , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010609111733.007ed100@pop.ozemail.com.au> References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:17 9/06/01 +1000, Tony Musgrove wrote: >Thanks for all who replied. I feel thoroughly outvoted. Two supplementary >questions..No-one thought that the auction was relevant. >Had the auction progressed at a more leasurely pace in which North >gets to bid her values in spades, then I agree we could not allow >the double by South after the hesitation. However, to my mind, North's >hesitation after the immediate 5C preempt, followed by the pass seems >to suggest that 5C may be making, and therefoe the only allowable >action by South is a double. AG : not really. A quick pass woud suggest that 5C could make. A slow pass shows that it is not far from going down. I could (present the Stop rule) force a double (or other action) after a quick pass ; I wouldn't do it after a slow double. A quick pass says pass will often be better than double : that's UI ; a slow pass says double will often be better than pass ; that's UI too. If it seems that there is UI in any case, well, that's true ; that's why the Stop rule was imposed. You don't practice it Down Under ? Too bad, it seems you won't be able to avoid UI in such a case. Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 00:40:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BEeU229420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:40:30 +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 f5BEeMt29372 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:40:23 +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 QAA27189; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:38:54 +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 QAA09082; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:38:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010611164315.00869980@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:43:15 +0200 To: "Thomas Dehn" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML In-Reply-To: <011001c0f17b$527bf260$a63d1dc2@rabbit> References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> <006001c0f0ea$94fd0fc0$dc3d1dc2@rabbit> <000801c0f0ff$cf84fda0$df8cc8d5@chello.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:02 10/06/01 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >Because declarer went down three in 5C doubled, >and without a description of the play in 5C doubled >I see no point in investigating whether it was >"likely" that 5C undoubled would was gone down only one or two. >Then, this is a pragmatic ruling: remove the impact >of the infraction, and let the players' skills >decide how much tricks each side gets. > >> Admittedly a diamond lead, or the HA >> followed by a diamond, should give -3. >> But other leads, none of them being >> strange, will produce two or even one down. >> NS should be happy with how you defend for them. >> Do the "possible" and "likely" apply here? AG : A normal defense would be : Spade lead to the Ace, Ace of clubs, Spade. If now West tries a Diamond to the Queen ... The problem is, it is possible that the play would have happened differently in the doubled and the undoubled contract. If you feel it's the case, you can adjust to some other number of tricks. Here, however, I don't feel it's the case. YMMV. 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 Jun 12 00:58:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BEwHj05718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:58:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BEwAt05677 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:58:10 +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 QAA05225; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:53:18 +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 QAA21529; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:56:46 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:01:02 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-Reply-To: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$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 23:57 8/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >West North East South > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > 3S*** P 4H All pass > >* Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) >** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer >*** Super accept > >Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 >hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of >the deal. >Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to >N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. AG : looks like a Belgian ruling to me (ie an absurd compromise). 1) Was there UI in West's announce ? Yes. 2) Was it used ? Not really. If West had bid 3S over a NF 2H, what could it be ??? Nothing, of course, and what could East do, except bid 4H ? Even if East's bid had been natural and 1RF, 3S being super acceptance of *hearts* in that case, there is no LA to 4H. Now there are two possibilities : 1) East said 'whoops ... 4H'. This creates UI. West suddenly understands the situation. Adjust to either 4S or 5H, deciding how many tricks would have been made. Allow the NOS a double. 2) East said 4H without a flicker and West awakens from the mere 4H bid. I don't think it's plausible, after all 4H may be a cue, but if you are convinced of the fact (say, the NOS admit there was nothing in the voice or gestures that had suggested the error, or there *were* screens), let 4H stand. If the NOS are good players, they must also know, after 4H-pass, that there was a miscomprehension, and thus have all the information they are entitled to. I would seldom adjust on the grounds that the bidding made the spade lead impossible, but there are such cases. So, you see, all depends on whether it's true that your wife maintained absolute poker face. What should *never* have ben done, however, is awarding an artificial score. Law 12C clearly restricts the cases of artificial scores (mainly to cases where the deal couldn't be played). Regards, Alain. >Marv >Marvin L. French, ISPE >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 01:04:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BF49T07756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:04:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BF42t07717 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:04:03 +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 RAA00935; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:02:34 +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 RAA25849; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:02:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010611170656.00870100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:06:56 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) In-Reply-To: <3B21EEC6.91EF353F@village.uunet.be> References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:39 9/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I realize that this may be too easy - just claim and you are >protected from all stupidity - and that is true. But I'm >also protected from finding any succeeding finesse, and >that's enough to warrant playing on, isn't it. >Anyway, Alain, I hope we shall meet over the bridge table >this afternoon, because since it's swiss, that will mean >I'll be doing well! AG : thanks for the compliment. Perhaps the easiest way would have been to registrate at the desk just behind me, so that we lpay one of the first 2 rounds against eachother ? 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 Jun 12 01:14:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BFElJ11449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:14:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BFEdt11409 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:14:40 +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 RAA02447; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:13:11 +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 RAA02641; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:13:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010611171733.0086c4a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:17:33 +0200 To: "Laval Dubreuil" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Card named but not played 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 12:21 9/06/01 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLers > >A defender names H10 as the card to be he played to the >current trick but put D3 faced up on table. He realy >has H10 in hand. >Your ruling. > >1- The H10 was fisrt named and played according to > Law 45C4a. D3 beomes a major penalty card. > >2- D3 is the card realy played to the trick (Law > 45A) and H10 becomes a penalty card. > AG : I rule 1). Law 45C4a says H10 *must* be played. D3 becomes MPC or mPC depending on whether it has been deliberately exposed (ie, it's a mPC if the player pulls H10 out of his hand, and D3 falls on the table (or floor) because it sticked to the H10). L45A only describes the correct procedure. L45C4a says what happens if the procedure is deviated from. If somebody followed suit to the D3, he may take his card back, assuming he did only do it routinely. If he did it because he erroneously thought D3 was played, he is guilty of infraction to L9B2. His card must now be played, because it's a penalty card, unless it constitutes a revoke, in which case it remains a PC. Of course, this does not apply to the declarer. 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 Jun 12 01:48:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BFlEP22751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:47:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BFl3t22695 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:47:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-90-247.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.90.247]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f5BFjZ513626; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:45:35 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000f01c0f28d$77174c60$f75a063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Carol von Linstow" , "Christine Francin" Subject: [BLML] To Tenerife Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:44:05 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:02:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 159U84-0006sX-08; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:01:24 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.0.204.37]) by fmrl05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 159U7p-29GfZIC; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:01:09 +0200 Message-ID: <3B24EB2F.FB235A09@vwalther.de> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:00:47 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 23:57 8/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >West North East South > > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > > 3S*** P 4H All pass > > > >* Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > >** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > >*** Super accept > > >1) East said 'whoops ... 4H'. This creates UI. West suddenly understands >the situation. Adjust to either 4S or 5H, deciding how many tricks would >have been made. Allow the NOS a double. Since 3S is not alerted the same UI is created. Sincerely, Volker Walther -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 02:37:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BGaxm03661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:37:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BGart03657 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:36:54 +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 JAA31213; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:35:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200106111635.JAA31213@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:47:20 +0200." <007201c0f24a$bee738e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:35:34 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen wrote: > > My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and described a > > ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > > > > The bidding: > > > > West North East South > > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > > 3S*** P 4H All pass > > > > * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > > ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > > *** Super accept > > > > Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 > > hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of > > the deal. > > > > Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would > > have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely > > improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > > > > Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to > > N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French, ISPE > > San Diego, CA, USA > > Some people seem to think that no UI was given from East to West. I > am not sure whether that is true (despite the poker face). My > questions: > > 1. Is a superaccept normally alerted in the ACBL? > 2. Wat 3S alerted in this auction? > > If the answers to these questions are 1. yes and 2. no, UI has been > passed from East to West. In that case, it is highly likely that it > was the failure to alert that woke up West and a score correction is > necessary. I agree. From West's point of view, 4H is a cue-bid with interest in a spade slam, and therefore West's final pass should be looked at very suspiciously. I'm not clear on whether 3S would be alertable. The way I play, 3S would be a "less-than-super" accept that shows four spades and a *minimum*; with a better hand with four trumps, we show our doubleton or bid 2NT. In this case, 3S is definitely alertable. However, with the simpler agreement that 3S shows a maximum with 4 good trumps (or 3 good trumps, the way some people play), I'm not sure whether 3S has to be alerted. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 02:42:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BGgJu03677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:42:19 +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 f5BGgDt03673 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:42:14 +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 f5BGg0a01204 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:42:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:39:52 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David J Grabiner" > > Next, was there MI? I don't know the E-W agreements. If the agreement > is that transfers are on over Hamilton 2C, then there is no MI, and > the result must stand. If there is no agreement, or the agreement is > that transfers are off, then there is MI. I should have made clear that E-W were not playing "systems on" over interference. They were playing Lebensohl, but that doesn't come into the picture. After some investigation, which should have preceded my post (sorry), I found out that dummy's hand was S- AKxx H-Ax D-AQx C-109xx, Alice's hand S-xxx H-J1098xx D-x C- AJx, and a diamond lead was near-automatic. Alice's RHO had diamonds as the long suit (sitting over dummy) and encouraged when she played the ace. Upon winning the first heart Alice's LHO continued diamonds, as would nearly everyone. However, although a spade switch beats 4H (Alice must lose another heart and then lose a club (KQ onside) to get a club discard. Unfortunately I can't judge that possibility without knowing the N-S spade holdings. The crux of the case is whether the MI might have caused the misdefense. > Assuming that there was MI, what result would be likely if the > infraction (failure to correct MI) had not occurred? If South is a > good player, there is unlikely to be damage, as he should be able to > figure out what is going on from the auction. (I suppose it is > possible that East has spades and cue-bid the HA and West passed the > cue-bid by mistake, and I would be open to this argument.) Not possible, because 2H was natural and not particularly invitational. That makes 3S an obvious mistake. If Alice had expressed surprise over that bid, then her partner could not pass 4H. But, as I said, Alice maintains a poker face when her side's wheels come off (as I know from experience). Her partner risked passing 4H on his own, perhaps remembering that they don't play "systems on." > > Another possible effect of MI: if North's suit was spades, he might > have doubled 3S if he had been properly informed. If this is the > case, then there probably was damage, as the double of 3S would be > likely to lead to a spade lead against 4H. North's suit was diamonds. > > Only after all this do we get to L12C2. Given the information South > should have (that East has hearts, and that West has a super-accept of > spades), he must decide how likely it is that South would find the > spade lead. If your "wildly unlikely" is correct, the score should > stand; the director could also rule that it is not likely but is "at > all probable", awarding -50 to E-W and -420 to N-S, or that it is > likely, awarding -50/+50. If North could have doubled 3S given correct > information, then -50/+50 is right. A spade switch after winning the first heart also beats 4H, but I don't know whether it was "at all probable." TD judgment. > > > Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to > > N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. > > This ruling is not supposed to be used when the TD is not sure of the > result; he is supposed to rule under L12C2, which most often means > giving the NOS the better of two likely results. If there is only one > likely result, there is supposed to be no damage. Yes. If there is only one result "at all probable." > > In this case, South may even have been bridge-lawyering; if there > had been an appeal, he would have to convince the AC that he couldn't > work out the situation from the information he had, as well as that a > spade lead would have been likely. I would be strongly inclined to > rule that the score stands unless North could have doubled 3S. > Me too, and no double was possible. However, a spade switch's likelihood would have to be judged by the TD. Thank you, David for the thorough analysis, and apologies for not providing more information. 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 Jun 12 02:52:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BGqLX03690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:52:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BGqFt03686 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:52:15 +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 f5BGq2a03284 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001401c0f296$a1199b40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010611112148.00f06900@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:49:09 -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: "Laurie Kelso" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >> > >> The bidding: > >> > >> West North East South > >> 1NT 2C* 2H** P > >> 3S*** P 4H All pass > >> > >> * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > >> ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > >> *** Super accept > >> > >First, was there UI? The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it > >should be an alert here) is UI. Incorrect per there agreement (natural 2H), but no Alert in ACBL-land for a non-invitational 2H response. > > However, the 3S response to a natural > >2H is impossible, and therefore it carries the AI that West thinks 2H > >shows spades. Thus East's 4H bid is allowed, and assuming that West > >does not have any UI (otherwise he must treat 4H as a cue-bid), the > >auction is valid. I think so too. > > If the announcement of 2H is UI to West, then why allow the 3S bid? I would > think the most favourable of the likely results without the infraction, for > the NOS, is either -170 or -140. West did the Announcing. As explained elsewhere, it boils down to whether the defense might have beaten 4H if Alice had properly disclosed before the opening lead that the Announcement was a mistake. Discussed in reply to David G's analysis. 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 Jun 12 03:12:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BHCOB03740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:12:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BHCIt03736 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:12:18 +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 f5BHC4a07547 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:12:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001a01c0f299$6e18a1c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:00:35 -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: "Ed Reppert" > >The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it should be an alert here) is UI. > > It is not clear to me that this is correct. The alert procedure > speaks of announcements in regard to three areas, of which transfer > responses to a NT opening or overcall is one. In that area, they say > nothing about interference. However, in specifying announcement of > forcing 1NT responses to 1 of a suit openings, the procedure *does* > say "without interference". If it's mentioned here, why not in the > other area, unless they did not intend to limit announcements there? > I believe 2D/2H/2S natural responses to 1NT, in competition or not, are Alertable only if invitational or stronger. If signoff (no competition) or merely competitive (in competition), no Alert. If the 2H bid is a transfer, or taken mistakenly to be a transfer (as in this case), an Announcement is correct. The "systems on" indicator on the ACBL cc is in black, not in red (red means Alertable). I would prefer that "systems on" be a red item, as Ed argues. 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 Jun 12 03:22:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BHMQY03759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BHMKt03755 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:22:20 +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 f5BHM6a09710 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002e01c0f29a$d519d820$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010611112148.00f06900@pop.ihug.com.au> <01061020364100.00198@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:18:48 -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 "David J Grabiner" wrote: > Announcements are only supposed to be made in certain specific > situations in which the bidding is routine and there should be no UI > problem. A 1NT opening with interference is not one of them. Nevertheless, diamond-to-heart and heart-to-spade xfers are Announceable, not Alertable, even in competition. This was confirmed by Gary Blaiss, ACBL CTD, in correspondence with me during the time I was developing a concise version of the Alert regulations (downloadable from David Stevenson's website). These xfers probably should be Alertable in competition, but as of now they are not. > In the example above, West's announcement is UI to East. Yes. But East could not logically pass this "super-accept" of a xfer, with her 3=6=1=3 hand. There was no LA to bidding 4H. Her partner had no UI from her (take it from me), so was free to pass 4H even though that logically would be a cue bid in support of spades. He is 80 years old and is confused often enough to make this sort of action a routine occurrence. 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 Jun 12 03:52:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BHqUS03777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:52:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BHqOt03773 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f5BHqBa15779 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004301c0f29f$08be8780$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <007201c0f24a$bee738e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:47:56 -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: "Rik Terveen" > > > From: Marvin L. French > > > My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, and described a > > ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > > > > The bidding: > > > > West North East South > > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > > 3S*** P 4H All pass > > > > * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > > ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > > *** Super accept > > > > Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, with a 4=2=3=4 > > hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't have a record of > > the deal. > > > > Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A spade lead would > > have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade lead extremely > > improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > > > > Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to > > N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. > > > Some people seem to think that no UI was given from East to West. I am not sure whether that is true (despite the poker face). The TD did not find this to be so, and the opponents did not think so either. My questions: > > 1. Is a superaccept normally alerted in the ACBL? There is no specific requirement to do so. I would say not, because it has such an obvious meaning. A case could be made for Alerting a non-jump, I suppose, when playing superaccepts, but I don't. Probably a non-jump should be explained by declarer before the opening lead is made, but these treatments are so common hereabouts that they are expected. A superaccept that merely shows four cards in the suit (as some play), even with a minimum, should be (and normally is) Alerted because it is not expected. Logically a non-jump should be Alerted as denying four cards in the suit, but pre-lead disclosure is probably good enough. > 2. Was 3S alerted in this auction? No, but that's a good point. I just asked Alice and she said that 3S was questioned, and she calmly explained it as a superaccept. While true in a way, the correct answer ("not discussed") would be terrible UI to partner. Since her reply could only damage her side, it seems pragmatically okay. Of couse she should have corrected things before the opening lead was made. She says that it didn't occur to her that the opponents would not realize what had happened. Of course that is not the criterion. > > If the answers to these questions are 1. yes and 2. no, UI has been passed from East to West. In that case, it is highly likely that it > was the failure to alert that woke up West and a score correction is necessary. Obviously not the case. > > When it comes to the 60-40 ruling: I think we all agree that that is not the way to solve these situations. > Right. This particular TD is a very intelligent person. He rules this way because he sees such rulings frequently in these parts, and has not bothered to acquire an understanding of L12. 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 Jun 12 06:46:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BKkFH22316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5BKk9t22312 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:46:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BDuqe00690 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:56:52 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:45:37 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01061113565100.00666@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: W N E S 1NT 2C! 2H! P (2C-single suit; 2H-mistakenly announced as transfer) 3S P 4H AP > I should have made clear that E-W were not playing "systems on" over > interference. They were playing Lebensohl, but that doesn't come into the > picture. > > After some investigation, which should have preceded my post (sorry), I > found out that dummy's hand was S- AKxx H-Ax D-AQx C-109xx, Alice's hand > S-xxx H-J1098xx D-x C- AJx, and a diamond lead was near-automatic. West's hand is useful here. If West had bid 3S as a superaccept, then 4H could be a cue. However, given that West holds the HA, he knows that 4H cannot be intended as a cue; even if East does cue kings, he cannot have a hand good enough to cue 4H with no minor-suit control and no AK of spades. Therefore, West has AI that 3S has been misunderstood, and there should not be any question that West's pass of 4H was influenced by UI. (As the problem was presented, there was no claim that there was UI.) > Alice's > RHO had diamonds as the long suit (sitting over dummy) and encouraged when > she played the ace. Upon winning the first heart Alice's LHO continued > diamonds, as would nearly everyone. However, although a spade switch beats > 4H (Alice must lose another heart and then lose a club (KQ onside) to get a > club discard. Unfortunately I can't judge that possibility without knowing > the N-S spade holdings. It seems unlikely that there was damage unless an opening spade lead was likely. After dummy has come down, it should be clear to N-S that East does not have a spade suit and heart cue-bid, particularly once South wins a heart trick with the HK. -- 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 Jun 12 07:51:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BLouM22347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:50:56 +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 f5BLoot22343 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:50:50 +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 OAA05017; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:49:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200106112149.OAA05017@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:45:37 -0000." <01061113565100.00666@psa836> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:49:29 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > W N E S > 1NT 2C! 2H! P (2C-single suit; 2H-mistakenly announced as transfer) > 3S P 4H AP > > > I should have made clear that E-W were not playing "systems on" over > > interference. They were playing Lebensohl, but that doesn't come into the > > picture. > > > > After some investigation, which should have preceded my post (sorry), I > > found out that dummy's hand was S- AKxx H-Ax D-AQx C-109xx, Alice's hand > > S-xxx H-J1098xx D-x C- AJx, and a diamond lead was near-automatic. > > West's hand is useful here. If West had bid 3S as a superaccept, then > 4H could be a cue. However, given that West holds the HA, he knows > that 4H cannot be intended as a cue; even if East does cue kings, he > cannot have a hand good enough to cue 4H with no minor-suit control and > no AK of spades. Therefore, West has AI that 3S has been > misunderstood, and there should not be any question that West's pass of > 4H was influenced by UI. I think "cannot" is too strong here. First of all, no law prevents East from being void in hearts (given that North is known to have an unknown long suit and South hasn't found out what it is, it's within the realm of possibility that N-S have an 11-card fit and haven't been able to jump around in it). Second, there's no law saying that East must always make the cheapest possible cue-bid. I've seen several cases in the Master Solvers' Club where the key (according to some of the panelists) was to make a cue-bid that gives partner the information he's most likely to need, or gets him to give you the information you're most likely to need. Let me put it another way. If I were West, and if I were sure I had the system correct, I would *never* "deduce" that partner had forgotten the system if given this auction. I wouldn't necessarily be sure what partner was trying to do, but I'd assume he had something consistent with his auction. I believe this approach is necessary for partnership harmony; this is based on some experiences I've had where my partners "deduced" that I had forgotten our system, and it led to a disaster. In one case, we had just agreed to play transfers over the opponents' strong clubs. RHO opened a strong 1C; I overcalled 1S; partner, holding 6 clubs, was afraid maybe I had forgotten our new agreement, and bid just 2C; then I bid 2S; this made partner even more certain that I had forgotten, and he stayed silent and we let the opponents play 4H making. In reality, I had 4=1=3=5, and if he had trusted me and jumped to 5C immediately, we would have found a great save or pushed them into 5H not making. Naturally, I was pretty upset with him. Some time later, we changed our agreement about (1S) 2S; instead of Michaels, it now showed hearts and clubs. So naturally RHO opened 1S, I bid 2S, and partner, holding five clubs, thought I'd forgotten again. But, probably remembering my lecture from last time, he jumped to 5C and played it there doubled down 1 for a very good score (since they can make 5S but our quick bidding didn't give them a chance to figure that out). So to me, assuming that partner has remembered the system and knows what he or she is doing is (almost) always a logical alternative. This is something that I naturally have strong feelings about. If I were judging a UI case and trying to determine the LA's, it would take an extremely unusual hand to rule that "assuming that we're on the same wavelength" is not a LA---and this hand isn't one of them. (Of course that doesn't apply to this case since there was apparently no UI.) -- 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 Jun 12 09:30:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BNTvv23623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:29:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta02.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5BNTqt23619 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:29:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [210.84.80.225] by mta02.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010611232836.DVU6352.mta02.mail.mel.aone.net.au@[210.84.80.225]> for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:28:36 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:20:57 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At a small country congress recently, I had to rule in this situation. South dealer, EW vul. S W N E 1H 1S P Dbl I carefully explained the Law, and East changed her bid to 2H, doubled by South. result: EW +670 for a top board. Here were the hands: 10763 - 875 K107632 KJ985 Q2 7 AJ109642 K104 Q93 A984 J A4 KQ853 AJ62 Q5 A classic law 23 and 72B1 situation. If I correctly understand the consensus on this, in deciding on 'could have known' we don't consider this specific East but a notional East knowledgeable in the laws and not overly fussy about ethics. If this notional East 'could have known' then we automatically adjust the score. My problem was that this particular EW were novices only a few months out of classes, and playing in their first congress. I had to carefully spell out East's options for her. I felt confident that this East would not have known that her infraction could benefit her side.It is just possible, I suppose, that this East had met this situation before in her brief bridge experience, and had thought 'What a cute trick. I must try that when I get the chance', but I think that highly unlikely. My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does the Law allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have known? My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure whether the Law was correctly applied. Comments please. Reg. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 09:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5BNtJv25037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:55:19 +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 f5BNtBt25001 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:55:13 +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 159bWQ-0006Xt-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:55:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:52:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au>, Reg Busch writes >At a small country congress recently, I had to rule in this situation. >South dealer, EW vul. >S W N E >1H 1S P Dbl > >I carefully explained the Law, and East changed her bid to 2H, doubled by >South. result: EW +670 for a top board. > Given all the information about EW I would allow the result to stand. >Here were the hands: > > 10763 > - > 875 > K107632 >KJ985 Q2 >7 AJ109642 >K104 Q93 >A984 J > A4 > KQ853 > AJ62 > Q5 >A classic law 23 and 72B1 situation. If I correctly understand the >consensus on this, in deciding on 'could have known' we don't consider this >specific East but a notional East knowledgeable in the laws and not overly >fussy about ethics. If this notional East 'could have known' then we >automatically adjust the score. 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 Jun 12 14:38:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C4bmx17793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:37:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C4bft17787 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:37:42 +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, 11 Jun 2001 21:32:10 -0700 Message-ID: <002001c0f2f9$2b2509c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <200106111635.JAA31213@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:35:49 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > > From West's point of view, 4H is a cue-bid with interest in > a spade slam, and therefore West's final pass should be looked at very > suspiciously. He's 80 years old, and unsophisticated enough to consider 4H a correction. No one would dare cue bid 4H with this partner. Besides, I just learned that Alice told the opponents (when asked) that 3S was a superaccept. (Not Alertable in any event, because they give 3S the normal meaning: max hand, four trumps.) No suspicion, West was on his own. As to the explanation of 3S, I don't know what to say. Technically it should not be explained as a superaccept, but any other explanation is UI that would require West to bid 4S over 4H. Of course the MI should have been corrected before the opening lead. 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 Jun 12 14:38:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C4bka17792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:37:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C4bdt17783 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:37:39 +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 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:32:08 -0700 Message-ID: <001f01c0f2f9$29e7a7c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061113565100.00666@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:32:56 -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: "David J Grabiner" < >, Marvin L. French wrote: > > W N E S > 1NT 2C! 2H! P (2C-single suit; 2H-mistakenly announced as transfer) > 3S P 4H AP > > > I should have made clear that E-W were not playing "systems on" over > > interference. They were playing Lebensohl, but that doesn't come into the > > picture. > > > > After some investigation, which should have preceded my post (sorry), I > > found out that dummy's hand was S- AKxx H-Ax D-AQx C-109xx, Alice's hand > > S-xxx H-J1098xx D-x C- AJx, and a diamond lead was near-automatic. > > It seems unlikely that there was damage unless an opening spade lead > was likely. After dummy has come down, it should be clear to N-S that > East does not have a spade suit and heart cue-bid, particularly once > South wins a heart trick with the HK. > I'm getting this story in driblets myself, after talking to some of the people involved. It turns out that the opening leader had Qxxx spades. After a spade lead and spade continuation, he lacks the entry needed to cash the spade queen. With Alice's RHO holding KQx of clubs, and all those entries in dummy, there is no way to beat 4H. N-S complained that opener had to bid 4S, but most of us agree that this was not so. He had no UI that would point to that, and moreover Alice explained 3S as being a superaccept, which you could call "negative UI." The artificial score adjustment turns out to be punishment for a misbid, not redress for any damge from the failure to explain the misbid. Result stands (and no PP!). 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 Jun 12 14:58:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C4vsV17852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:57:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C4vmt17848 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:57:49 +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, 11 Jun 2001 21:52:18 -0700 Message-ID: <003e01c0f2fb$faf5cde0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:46:45 -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: "Reg Busch" > > My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does the Law > allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this > particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have known? > > My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some > misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure whether the > Law was correctly applied. > While I usually deplore rulings based on "the class of player involved," which give advantage to the knowns over the unknowns, it seems reasonable to rule that this player could not possibly have known that the irregularity would be likely to cause damage. You have to be a little flexible when dealing with novices. The Law was bent a little, but justice was done. 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 Jun 12 15:46:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C5jZK03558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:45:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from balder.inter.net.il (balder.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5C5jQt03510 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-10-78.inter.net.il [213.8.10.78]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ARE93881; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:43:59 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3B25ACE9.8106841E@inter.net.il> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:47:21 +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 - July 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 33rd 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 eigth 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) Alan Hill - Harvey (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 Tue Jun 12 15:47:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C5lb803667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:47:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C5lWt03663 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:47:32 +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, 11 Jun 2001 22:42:03 -0700 Message-ID: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:45:34 -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 have all the info on *this* case, because it came up at my table in a 20-table afternoon game today. (Two 10-table Mitchell sections, no duplication, ACBL-approved overall masterpoint awards). Vulnerability: None Dealer: West (Alice) S- xx H- KJ10xx D- AQ108 C- xx S- KQJxx S- Axx H- void H- xxx D- Kxxx D- x C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx (Marv) S- xxx H- AQxxx D- Jxxx C- J The bidding: West North East South 1S 2H 3H * 4H 4S P P ** 5H X ** P 5S All pass * Explained as a limit raise ** Break in tempo Heart lead, making only five (declarer didn't realize she had to trump a diamond). I called the TD when East's hand hit the table (as suggested by L16A2). She ruled no infraction. When I questioned this, she said that hesitations call for a score adjustment only when the hesitator bids something and partner takes advantage of the hesitation. The opponents smiled at my ignorance. I didn't argue (much), but asked her to read L16A. She came back later to tell me that she did read it and her interpretation was correct. Surely the hesitation by West indicated doubt about doubling, which demonstrably suggests a pull by East. My question is: Would a pass of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a heart void. 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 Jun 12 16:55:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C6tNY03724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:55:23 +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 f5C6tCt03712 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:55:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.241]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5C6roc18825 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:53:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B2518A8.531E4737@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:14:48 +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] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010611170656.00870100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 11:39 9/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I realize that this may be too easy - just claim and you are > >protected from all stupidity - and that is true. But I'm > >also protected from finding any succeeding finesse, and > >that's enough to warrant playing on, isn't it. > >Anyway, Alain, I hope we shall meet over the bridge table > >this afternoon, because since it's swiss, that will mean > >I'll be doing well! > > AG : thanks for the compliment. Perhaps the easiest way would have been to > registrate at the desk just behind me, so that we lpay one of the first 2 > rounds against eachother ? > > A. Doesn't work. Draw for first round. André is no fool ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 16:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C6tPt03725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:55:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f5C6tDt03714 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:55:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.241]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5C6rrc18869 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:53:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B251949.2E9DB43C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:17:29 +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] To Tenerife References: <000f01c0f28d$77174c60$f75a063e@pacific> 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 ================================= > "Our experience is composed rather of > illusions lost than of wisdom acquired." > [Joseph Roux] > + = + - + - + - + - + - > > My email facilities will not receive or send until my > return from Tenerife July 4. This one closing now, > cyaxares towards midnight. > > -- > I'm also going to Tenerife. I'm hoping to be able to read my e-mail there, and will inform you when this succeeds. If it does, feel free to contact any of the regulars via my e-mail. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 16:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C6tKF03723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5C6tAt03710 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:55:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA12603; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:53:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jun 12 08:52:52 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 <01K4O9E1357O007TO2@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:53:38 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:52:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:53:27 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] San Diego ruling To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B87D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >My wife Alice just returned home after an evening club game, > and described a > >ruling that was made against her. Alice was East. > > > >The bidding: > > > >West North East South > > 1NT 2C* 2H** P > > 3S*** P 4H All pass > > > >* Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > >** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > >*** Super accept > > > >Alice maintains a poker face in such situations, so West, > with a 4=2=3=4 > >hand, figured out his error without help. Sorry, I don't > have a record of > >the deal. > > > >Alice neglected to correct the MI and took ten tricks. A > spade lead would > >have beaten 4H, but the super accept of spades made a spade > lead extremely > >improbable even if the MI had been corrected. > > > >Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he > gave avg+ to > >N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. John P. replied: > Regardless of how I would have ruled the table ruling is > typical of the > arrogant incompetence of ACBL TDs. Is that strong enough, Marv? > If this is meant to be ironical, I am not sure Marvin will understand it. If it is meant seriously I am not understanding it. ton > >Marv > >Marvin L. French, ISPE > >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >============================================================= > =========== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > >A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > -- > > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq > 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 17:35:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C7ZMJ07384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:35:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C7ZFt07347 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:35:16 +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 ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:35:21 +0200 Message-ID: <002701c0f312$2598b6a0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:34:40 +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 f5C7ZHt07360 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 7:45 AM Subject: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 > I have all the info on *this* case, because it came up at my table > in a 20-table afternoon game today. (Two 10-table Mitchell sections, > no duplication, ACBL-approved overall masterpoint awards). > > Vulnerability: None > Dealer: West > > (Alice) > S- xx > H- KJ10xx > D- AQ108 > C- xx > > S- KQJxx S- Axx > H- void H- xxx > D- Kxxx D- x > C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > (Marv) > S- xxx > H- AQxxx > D- Jxxx > C- J > > The bidding: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > 4S P P ** 5H > X ** P 5S All pass > > * Explained as a limit raise > ** Break in tempo > > Heart lead, making only five (declarer didn't realize she had to > trump a diamond). I called the TD when East's hand hit the table > (as suggested by L16A2). She ruled no infraction. When I > questioned this, she said that hesitations call for a score > adjustment only when the hesitator bids something and partner > takes advantage of the hesitation. The opponents smiled at my > ignorance. > > I didn't argue (much), but asked her to read L16A. She came back > later to tell me that she did read it and her interpretation was > correct. > > Surely the hesitation by West indicated doubt about doubling, which > demonstrably suggests a pull by East. My question is: Would a pass > of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a > heart void. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > I always like the 'I knew partner had a void because the opponents must have so many cards for their bidding' reasoning. It always gives me a good laugh. Without any other information present, it is clear that you can use this information (at your own risk). In general, though, it is better to let partner bid his hand while you bid your own. If partner really has a void, he could have drawn his own conclusions. The double says that West wants to defend 5H X (*). East will have to trust that West had a reason for his double. With the given East hand, I would go further than you: I see no LA to pass. Passing is the only thing that I can imagine doing with this hand. (*) If the double says 'I only want to defend if you really want to', as some people play it, the story is entirely different. But I assume that that is not the case here. 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 18:15:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C8FFE21467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:15:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5C8EEt21113 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:14:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id EC4402A4E64; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:12:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 69E5E2A4E74 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:12:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 14837 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 08:12:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 08:12:34 -0000 Message-ID: <3B25CE7E.3040202@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:10:38 +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 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B24EB2F.FB235A09@vwalther.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: b6888acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Volker R. Walther wrote: > alain gottcheiner wrote: > >> At 23:57 8/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>> West North East South >>> 1NT 2C* 2H** P >>> 3S*** P 4H All pass >>> >>> * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) >>> ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer >>> *** Super accept >>> > > >> 1) East said 'whoops ... 4H'. This creates UI. West suddenly understands >> the situation. Adjust to either 4S or 5H, deciding how many tricks would >> have been made. Allow the NOS a double. > > > Since 3S is not alerted the same UI is created. > Only if 3S over 2H transfer is alertable in ACBL land. Is it? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ============================================================= Big Brother oczyma Piotra "Pici" Lato, uczestnika programu... http://relacje.interia.pl/id/relacja?cid=9276 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 18:20:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C8Jv523051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:19:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C8Jnt23012 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:19:50 +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 KAA15233; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:18:19 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA05714; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:18:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010612102241.0086d530@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:22:41 +0200 To: Reg Busch , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:20 12/06/01 -0700, Reg Busch wrote: >At a small country congress recently, I had to rule in this situation. >South dealer, EW vul. >S W N E >1H 1S P Dbl > >I carefully explained the Law, and East changed her bid to 2H, doubled by >South. result: EW +670 for a top board. > >My problem was that this particular EW were novices only a few months out >of classes, and playing in their first congress. I had to carefully spell >out East's options for her. I felt confident that this East would not have >known that her infraction could benefit her side.It is just possible, I >suppose, that this East had met this situation before in her brief bridge >experience, and had thought 'What a cute trick. I must try that when I get >the chance', but I think that highly unlikely. > >My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does the Law >allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this >particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have known? > >My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some >misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure whether the >Law was correctly applied. > >Comments please. AG : the misgivings you could have felt are not to be attributed to the fact that E/W benefitted from the fact that they were near-beginners (it happens quite frequently, and right so), but from the fact that _you_ knew they were. Faced with an unknown pair, the ruling would have been more difficult to sustain. However, I think you were right, if you are sure they *couldn't* have known, to let them walk away with their top. Do not forget to lecture them about L23 and to tell them they will never again benefit from your leniency on L23 matters. 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 Jun 12 18:39:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C8d9429566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:39:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5C8d1t29530 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:39:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA18193; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:37:31 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA20629; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:37:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010612104153.008009c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:41:53 +0200 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 In-Reply-To: <002701c0f312$2598b6a0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$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 09:34 12/06/01 +0200, Rik Terveen wrote: > >> I have all the info on *this* case, because it came up at my table >> in a 20-table afternoon game today. (Two 10-table Mitchell sections, >> no duplication, ACBL-approved overall masterpoint awards). >> >> Vulnerability: None >> Dealer: West >> >> (Alice) >> S- xx >> H- KJ10xx >> D- AQ108 >> C- xx >> >> S- KQJxx S- Axx >> H- void H- xxx >> D- Kxxx D- x >> C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx >> >> (Marv) >> S- xxx >> H- AQxxx >> D- Jxxx >> C- J >> >> The bidding: >> >> West North East South >> 1S 2H 3H * 4H >> 4S P P ** 5H >> X ** P 5S All pass >> >> * Explained as a limit raise >> ** Break in tempo >> >> Heart lead, making only five (declarer didn't realize she had to >> trump a diamond). I called the TD when East's hand hit the table >> (as suggested by L16A2). She ruled no infraction. When I >> questioned this, she said that hesitations call for a score >> adjustment only when the hesitator bids something and partner >> takes advantage of the hesitation. The opponents smiled at my >> ignorance. >> >> I didn't argue (much), but asked her to read L16A. She came back >> later to tell me that she did read it and her interpretation was >> correct. AG : and you didn't ask her to show you where her it was written in the Law Book ? >I always like the 'I knew partner had a void because the opponents must have so many cards for their bidding' reasoning. It always gives me a good laugh. Without any other information present, it is clear that you can use this information (at your own risk). AG : what if South had 3 hearts and long diamonds ? Isn't she allowed to bid 4H ? Anyway, Pass is a clear LA. One more point : since the infraction is in the pulling, not in the tempo, retract the contract to 5H *doubled* (the double occurred before the infraction). Do this regardless of whether the contract makes or not. Here, it doesn't. My ruling : -100/+100, no second choice. I suppose Marv intends to show our answers to the TD in charge, as we always do in such a case. I will thus add a comment : Mrs TD, you should read carefully the wording of L73C and 73F, which, as you will remark, do not restrict the field of application of L16. You are not allowed to base your rulings on any personal interpretation of the law. By doing so, you committed an infraction to L12C, L81C5, L81C7, L83, L84D. 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 Jun 12 18:43:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5C8hJa01017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:43:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5C8glt00834 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:42:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 0A9622A4D9D; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:41:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id C70102A4E1F for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:41:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 468 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 08:41:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 08:41:10 -0000 Message-ID: <3B25D532.4050308@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:39:14 +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 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061113565100.00666@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 31d34acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > W N E S > 1NT 2C! 2H! P (2C-single suit; 2H-mistakenly announced as transfer) > 3S P 4H AP > >> I should have made clear that E-W were not playing "systems on" over >> interference. They were playing Lebensohl, but that doesn't come into the >> picture. >> >> After some investigation, which should have preceded my post (sorry), I >> found out that dummy's hand was S- AKxx H-Ax D-AQx C-109xx, Alice's hand >> S-xxx H-J1098xx D-x C- AJx, and a diamond lead was near-automatic. > > > West's hand is useful here. If West had bid 3S as a superaccept, then > 4H could be a cue. However, given that West holds the HA, he knows > that 4H cannot be intended as a cue; even if East does cue kings, he > cannot have a hand good enough to cue 4H with no minor-suit control and > no AK of spades. Perhaps this is all about the differences between Polish and American school of cue-bidding but the fact that I hold the hA myself would never by itself make me think that 4H "cannot be intended as a cue". Everyone I know cues first and second round controls up the line so East can well have a second round control. As for the argument that East, being strong enough to cue, has got to have a minor suit control. Of course he has a minor suit control. The 4H cue, omitting two suits, shows therefore shortness and a slammish hand; this is a very common treatment; well at least among the Polish players. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ============================================================= Big Brother oczyma Piotra "Pici" Lato, uczestnika programu... http://relacje.interia.pl/id/relacja?cid=9276 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 20:39:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CAcau06235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:38:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CAcSt06231 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 159lXZ-000Lea-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:36:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 02:34:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Eric Landau" >> >> I believe that the AC's decision is logical only given that they >> accepted the key assumption on which Marv based his argument. Had the >> committee believed that a hesitation is merely a procedural violation, >> but that such violations are subject to a PP, then they were indeed >> acting illogically: either the player hesitated, in which case they >> should have adjusted the score and given the PP, or he didn't, in which >> case they should have done neither, as Alain says. > >Eric knows that it is not the hesitation that is an infraction, but the >illegal use of that UI. What he means, I'm sure, is that if there was a >hesitation, then North committed an illegal action by reopening with a lousy >hand and a score adjustment is in order. This offense was so bad that some >sort of disciplinary action might have been in order. However the purpose of >PPs is not to discipline players (see below) It is important that you realise that the fact that the majority of people around the world disagree with you in this matter is not because they are using L90 for Disciplinary Penalties. They are not. They are using it for Procedural Penalties. L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in the ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow this procedure. -- 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 Jun 12 21:47:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CBkhd29039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:46:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5CBkat29006 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:46:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.194.185] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 159mbf-0004aJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:45:12 +0100 Message-ID: <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:43:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in the > ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow this > procedure. No, it doesn't. "Procedure" in the context of a bridge tournament means counting your cards before looking at them, moving to the right table, playing within time limits, filling in your convention card properly, and so forth. Procedural penalties for not doing things like this are at the TD's discretion. But cheating is not an offence against "procedure", and to call a fine for cheating a "procedural penalty" is to weasel out. Of course, it is the kind of weaselling out that happens all the time, but that does not make it the right thing to do. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 22:02:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CC27R29388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:02:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CC1wt29351 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:01:59 +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 NAA12651; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:57:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA24728; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:00:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010612140450.0086d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:04:50 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3B25CE7E.3040202@interia.pl> References: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B24EB2F.FB235A09@vwalther.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:10 12/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > >Volker R. Walther wrote: > >> alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> At 23:57 8/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >>> >>>> West North East South >>>> 1NT 2C* 2H** P >>>> 3S*** P 4H All pass >>>> >>>> * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) >>>> ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer >>>> *** Super accept >>>> >> >> >>> 1) East said 'whoops ... 4H'. This creates UI. West suddenly understands >>> the situation. Adjust to either 4S or 5H, deciding how many tricks would >>> have been made. Allow the NOS a double. >> >> >> Since 3S is not alerted the same UI is created. >> >Only if 3S over 2H transfer is alertable in ACBL land. Is it? AG : I hope it isn't. It isn't in Belgium. It is natural in the full acception of the term : marking an interest to play in the choosen denomination, and the ability to play it at the choosen level. And the meaning of the bid is quite obvious to the average tournament player. Why it should be alerted escapes me. Now, does East need to alert his partne's 3S over the 2H (intended) signoff ? No, because the bid is 'impossible' (2S would have been conventional, showing H support, I suppose, but 3S ??), thus you have no agreement about it, and you shouldn't alert. To which use would you do it ? To be asked and answer it is impossible ? *That* would transmit unauthorised information, wouldn't it ? Ah, yes, the dWS. If you are a deWaelist, you will pretend your partner responds to your (intended) 2H signoff with a 3S response to a Transfer, and alert and explain it as such. Well, you don't have to alert it. So, while dWites and classicists differ on whether they would alert 2S, they don't about 3S. The fact that 3S is not alerted can't transmit any information, because I don't see in which system it would be alerted. 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 Jun 12 22:12:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CCCLR02934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:12:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CCCEt02930 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:12:15 +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 OAA25210; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:07:22 +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 OAA04251; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:10:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010612141507.007fe7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:15:07 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3B25D532.4050308@interia.pl> References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061113565100.00666@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:39 12/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >Perhaps this is all about the differences between Polish and American >school of cue-bidding but >the fact that I hold the hA myself would never by itself make me think >that 4H "cannot be >intended as a cue". Everyone I know cues first and second round controls >up the line so >East can well have a second round control. As for the argument that >East, being strong >enough to cue, has got to have a minor suit control. Of course he has a >minor suit control. >The 4H cue, omitting two suits, shows therefore shortness and a slammish >hand; this is >a very common treatment; well at least among the Polish players. AG : OK, let's say we agree on the meaning of 4H, playing standard Polish Q-bidding. Now, let's pretend there were screens. Upon seeing the 4H bid come on the tray, West suddenly decides that a wheel has come loose, and passes, risking that 4H was a cue. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to. You may take any risk you wish, provided you don't take into account any extraneous information. Perhaps West knows her partner would not make her transfer on a slammish hand, which makes the Q-bid illogical ? So, all boils down to the answer to the question : "did East behave in any way that could give her parner a hint about the situation ?" If you have strong evidence that the answer is 'no', see previous paragraph. In most cases, you would rule UI. This analysis is based on the premise that E/W aren't able to practise ESP. Well, the whole game of bridge is. 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 Jun 12 22:24:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CCOLt02948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:24:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5CCOEt02944 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:24:15 +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 f5CCMre90987 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010612081226.00b21680@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, 12 Jun 2001 08:22:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010612102241.0086d530@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:22 AM 6/12/01, alain wrote: >At 09:20 12/06/01 -0700, Reg Busch wrote: > >South dealer, EW vul. > >S W N E > >1H 1S P Dbl > >My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does > the Law > >allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this > >particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have >known? > > > >My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some > >misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure > whether the > >Law was correctly applied. >AG : the misgivings you could have felt are not to be attributed to the >fact that E/W benefitted from the fact that they were near-beginners (it >happens quite frequently, and right so), but from the fact that _you_ knew >they were. Faced with an unknown pair, the ruling would have been more >difficult to sustain. >However, I think you were right, if you are sure they *couldn't* have >known, to let them walk away with their top. Do not forget to lecture them >about L23 and to tell them they will never again benefit from your >leniency >on L23 matters. Putting Reg's original question about "class of player" aside, am I the only one who has misgivings about the general assumption that L23 should apply here? E held Q2/AJ109642/Q93/J. Is it all that clear that E can expect hearts to play better than spades when S is known to hold five or six hearts and W overcalled 1S? 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 Jun 12 22:41:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CCfPc02967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:41:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CCfIt02961 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:41:19 +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 f5CCcNW16618 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:38:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:32:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in >the > > ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow this > > procedure. > >No, it doesn't. "Procedure" in the context of a bridge tournament means >counting your cards before looking at them, moving to the right table, >playing within time limits, filling in your convention card properly, >and so forth. Procedural penalties for not doing things like this are at >the TD's discretion. But cheating is not an offence against "procedure", >and to call a fine for cheating a "procedural penalty" is to weasel out. >Of course, it is the kind of weaselling out that happens all the time, >but that does not make it the right thing to do. Eh? Does your first sentence mean "law 73c does not lay out a matter of procedure," or that a TD or AC has no right to issue a PP for failure to follow that procedure? In the former case, I would say that IAW with the Scope of the Laws ("The Laws are designed to define correct procedure...") Law 73C certainly *does* define correct procedure - in this case that a player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." In the latter case, I infer that you consider failure to follow the correct procedure specified in Law 73C cheating. I would agree - *if* the failure is deliberate. In that case, disciplinary penalties are certainly appropriate - and PPs would be pointless. But if the action is not *clearly* deliberate, I don't see how you can call it cheating - - and if it isn't, then a PP certainly seems more appropriate than a DP. I have no problem calling a spade a spade, if it clearly *is* a spade. I do have a problem accusing someone of cheating unless it's clear he's doing so. 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/AwUBOyYNor2UW3au93vOEQKUEACfefkuBREcDtNz7NeY+WDUVbDpJ+EAn0DL 92+WnEdrsn6pDDGO2uRSpG6r =ydwO -----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 Jun 12 22:41:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CCfVJ02971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:41:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CCfNt02966 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:41:24 +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 f5CCcbW16741 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010612140450.0086d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B24EB2F.FB235A09@vwalther.de> <3.0.6.32.20010612140450.0086d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:37:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:04 PM +0200 6/12/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >The fact that 3S is not alerted can't transmit any information, because I >don't see in which system it would be alerted. I suppose it depends on the extent of a partnership's agreements. For example, I have played that after 1NT-2H (transfer to spades), a new suit is "super acceptance" with A or K doubleton in the suit, 2NT shows a weak doubleton in some suit, and 3H denies either of those. In that case, I would think 3H is alertable, as it conveys information not included in the "natural" meaning of the bid. 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/AwUBOyYNqL2UW3au93vOEQLc2wCePt4qc1CWBohpFSmefshJWQ+9J3EAn34V qUG4qsQ6TzzlrXR6vKlnEGp0 =zTb0 -----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 Jun 12 23:17:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CDFtq11266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:15:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CDFmt11228 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:15:49 +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 ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:15:54 +0200 Message-ID: <008c01c0f341$b816ce20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be><3B24EB2F.FB235A09@vwalther.de> <3.0.6.32.20010612140450.0086d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:15:13 +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 f5CDFpt11244 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Konrad Ciborowski Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling > At 10:10 12/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > > >Volker R. Walther wrote: > > > >> alain gottcheiner wrote: > >> > >>> At 23:57 8/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>> > >>>> West North East South > >>>> 1NT 2C* 2H** P > >>>> 3S*** P 4H All pass > >>>> > >>>> * Hamilton (one suited hand, suit unspecified) > >>>> ** Natural, not forcing, Announced as a transfer > >>>> *** Super accept > >>>> > >> > >> > >>> 1) East said 'whoops ... 4H'. This creates UI. West suddenly understands > >>> the situation. Adjust to either 4S or 5H, deciding how many tricks would > >>> have been made. Allow the NOS a double. > >> > >> > >> Since 3S is not alerted the same UI is created. > >> > >Only if 3S over 2H transfer is alertable in ACBL land. Is it? > > AG : I hope it isn't. It isn't in Belgium. It is natural in the full > acception of the term : marking an interest to play in the choosen > denomination, and the ability to play it at the choosen level. And the > meaning of the bid is quite obvious to the average tournament player. Why > it should be alerted escapes me. > > Now, does East need to alert his partne's 3S over the 2H (intended) signoff > ? No, because the bid is 'impossible' (2S would have been conventional, > showing H support, I suppose, but 3S ??), thus you have no agreement about > it, and you shouldn't alert. To which use would you do it ? To be asked and > answer it is impossible ? *That* would transmit unauthorised information, > wouldn't it ? > > Ah, yes, the dWS. If you are a deWaelist, you will pretend your partner > responds to your (intended) 2H signoff with a 3S response to a Transfer, > and alert and explain it as such. Well, you don't have to alert it. > > So, while dWites and classicists differ on whether they would alert 2S, > they don't about 3S. > > The fact that 3S is not alerted can't transmit any information, because I > don't see in which system it would be alerted. > > Alain. > > -- As I understood from Marvin, in this case there was no reason to alert 3S. However, there are situations where a superaccept to 3S does require an alert. The bid may have an additional meaning that the opponents might not understand. Such a meaning could be that it is a _minimum_ hand with four spades (quite a popular agreement, but hardly an obvious one for those who don't understand the underlying principles). 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 12 23:39:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CDc5U19276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5CDbwt19236 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:37:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.188.234] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 159oLV-0003Y0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:36:38 +0100 Message-ID: <004b01c0f344$87af1d20$eabc7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:35:20 +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 Ed wrote: > >No, it doesn't. "Procedure" in the context of a bridge tournament means > >counting your cards before looking at them, moving to the right table, > >playing within time limits, filling in your convention card properly, > >and so forth. Procedural penalties for not doing things like this are at > >the TD's discretion. But cheating is not an offence against "procedure", > >and to call a fine for cheating a "procedural penalty" is to weasel out. > >Of course, it is the kind of weaselling out that happens all the time, > >but that does not make it the right thing to do. > > Eh? Does your first sentence mean "law 73c does not lay out a matter > of procedure," or that a TD or AC has no right to issue a PP for > failure to follow that procedure? It means that Law 73C does not lay out a matter of procedure. Taking advantage (or not taking advantage) of UI is not "procedural". > In the former case, I would say that IAW with the Scope of the Laws > ("The Laws are designed to define correct procedure...") Law 73C > certainly *does* define correct procedure - in this case that a > player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue > to his side." Indeed, the Laws are designed to define correct procedure. But that is not all they are designed to do - it is not the case that everything in the Laws is concerned with procedure. Procedure, as I understand the temr, has to do with the mechanics of the game - dealing the cards, moving from table to table, and so on. It has nothing to do with the ethics of the game, or with what conduct is "proper". Taking advantage of UI is an offence against propriety, not against procedure. > In the latter case, I infer that you consider failure to follow the > correct procedure specified in Law 73C cheating. I would agree - *if* > the failure is deliberate. In that case, disciplinary penalties are > certainly appropriate - and PPs would be pointless. But if the action > is not *clearly* deliberate, I don't see how you can call it cheating > - - and if it isn't, then a PP certainly seems more appropriate than a I use the term "cheating" instead of the wearisome "taking advantage of unauthorised information" because short words are preferable to long ones. I know that "cheating" means "knowingly breaking the Laws for gain", while many breaches of Law are in fact inadvertent. But just about every player does know that he is not supposed to use UI; it is very rare that one comes across a case of a player, found to have bid on the basis of his partner's tempo rather than his own cards, who will honestly say that he did not know his behaviour was against the rules. 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 Jun 13 00:02:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CE15727467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:01:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5CE05t27116 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:00:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 071192A4827; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 827942A4489 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:58:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 16220 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2001 13:55:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 12 Jun 2001 13:55:22 -0000 Message-ID: <3B261ED5.4040909@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:53:25 +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 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061113565100.00666@psa836> <3.0.6.32.20010612141507.007fe7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: a9b46acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:39 12/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> Perhaps this is all about the differences between Polish and American >> school of cue-bidding but >> the fact that I hold the hA myself would never by itself make me think >> that 4H "cannot be >> intended as a cue". Everyone I know cues first and second round controls >> up the line so >> East can well have a second round control. As for the argument that >> East, being strong >> enough to cue, has got to have a minor suit control. Of course he has a >> minor suit control. >> The 4H cue, omitting two suits, shows therefore shortness and a slammish >> hand; this is >> a very common treatment; well at least among the Polish players. > > > AG : OK, let's say we agree on the meaning of 4H, playing standard Polish > Q-bidding. Now, let's pretend there were screens. Upon seeing the 4H bid > come on the tray, West suddenly decides that a wheel has come loose, and > passes, risking that 4H was a cue. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed > to. I have never said he is not allowed to; he is on his own here [in the final of Polish Mixed Pairs Championship half the field managed to play 5H on a trump holding void opposite a singleton (!) after the auction went 1S - 4H (splinter) - 4S - 5H (void) - pass]. What I objected to was the argument that the 4H bid *by itself* reveals that 2H was intended as natural and therefore West is allowed to pass *even* if East failed to maintain the poker face. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland --------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------------------- Nie wiesz, co Cie czeka? Nie wiesz jak postapic? Sprawdz swoj horoskop! http://rozrywka.interia.pl/id/otobie/horoskop/www/horoskop/horoskop_main -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 01:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CFsVP07417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:54:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CFsOt07375 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 01:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive46i.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.210]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA20901 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:53:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00c501c0f358$10fc0f80$d210f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004b01c0f344$87af1d20$eabc7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:55:11 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" > I use the term "cheating" instead of the wearisome "taking advantage of > unauthorised information" because short words are preferable to long > ones. I know that "cheating" means "knowingly breaking the Laws for > gain", while many breaches of Law are in fact inadvertent. But just > about every player does know that he is not supposed to use UI; it is > very rare that one comes across a case of a player, found to have bid on > the basis of his partner's tempo rather than his own cards, who will > honestly say that he did not know his behaviour was against the rules. It is apparent that almost all of your activity in bridge is at the highest level David. The majority of players at lower levels do NOT understand that making the bid they would have made anyway is wrong or against the rules, let alone cheating. UI is poorly understood even on this list (just look at how we disagree on it). For the typical bridge player, there is nothing wrong if he doesn't do something different than he might normally have done without the UI. He is NOT a cheat even though he has "taken advantage of unauthorised information". Were you to use that word in my game, you would be up before a C&E hearing and probably facing a suspension. Calling a spade a spade is one thing, but you are calling an apple an orange. Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 02:49:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CGmvK21543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:48:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CGmmt21491 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA28461; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:47:15 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA17734; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:47:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010612185137.00802df0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:51:37 +0200 To: "Craig Senior" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC In-Reply-To: <00c501c0f358$10fc0f80$d210f7a5@james> References: <004b01c0f344$87af1d20$eabc7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:55 12/06/01 -0400, Craig Senior wrote: > >It is apparent that almost all of your activity in bridge is at >the highest level David. The majority of players at lower levels >do NOT understand that making the bid they would have made >anyway is wrong or against the rules, let alone cheating. UI is >poorly understood even on this list (just look at how we >disagree on it). For the typical bridge player, there is nothing >wrong if he doesn't do something different than he might >normally have done without the UI. He is NOT a cheat even though >he has "taken advantage of unauthorised information". Were you >to use that word in my game, you would be up before a C&E >hearing and probably facing a suspension. Calling a spade a >spade is one thing, but you are calling an apple an orange. AG : specialists of the English language, please help me. In French, we have two verbs : 1) tricher = to cheat 2) trichoter (which has the structure of a diminutive form) = consistently infringing the rules because one doesn't understand how far they go, even though one should understand. In short, you aren't (to be called) a cheat unless you intend to. Is there any English verb that efficiently translates 'trichoter' ? You see, using this verb is very opportunistic : you aren't calling them cheats, but you clearly let hear that you disapprove. Of course, an AC might use it when appropriate. Regards, Alain >Craig > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 03:28:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CHS2m25805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:28:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CHRpt25801 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:27:53 +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 159rvy-000NGo-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:26:30 +0000 Message-ID: <+BS$XrBWBlJ7Ewr7@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:24:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010611170656.00870100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B2518A8.531E4737@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B2518A8.531E4737@village.uunet.be> 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 <3B2518A8.531E4737@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >> At 11:39 9/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >I realize that this may be too easy - just claim and you are >> >protected from all stupidity - and that is true. But I'm >> >also protected from finding any succeeding finesse, and >> >that's enough to warrant playing on, isn't it. >> >Anyway, Alain, I hope we shall meet over the bridge table >> >this afternoon, because since it's swiss, that will mean >> >I'll be doing well! >> >> AG : thanks for the compliment. Perhaps the easiest way would have been to >> registrate at the desk just behind me, so that we lpay one of the first 2 >> rounds against eachother ? >> >> A. > >Doesn't work. Draw for first round. André is no fool ! > Best shot would have been to TD, and kibitz the table IMO. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 03:30:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CHU0725817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:30:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CHTst25813 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:29:54 +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 159rxv-0000Ne-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:28:31 +0000 Message-ID: <6Ba+X1B2ClJ7EwLy@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:26:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@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 <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in >the >> ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow this >> procedure. > >No, it doesn't. "Procedure" in the context of a bridge tournament means >counting your cards before looking at them, moving to the right table, >playing within time limits, filling in your convention card properly, >and so forth. Procedural penalties for not doing things like this are at >the TD's discretion. But cheating is not an offence against "procedure", >and to call a fine for cheating a "procedural penalty" is to weasel out. >Of course, it is the kind of weaselling out that happens all the time, >but that does not make it the right thing to do. > I am strongly inclined to agree. I award PP's for anything *not* across the table, and l12C3 when it is. 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 Wed Jun 13 05:04:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CJ42T26172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:04:02 +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 f5CJ3rt26167 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:03:55 +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 LAA14058 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:02:32 -0800 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:02:31 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 In-Reply-To: <002701c0f312$2598b6a0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv French posted: > > Vulnerability: None > > Dealer: West > > > > (Alice) > > S- xx > > H- KJ10xx > > D- AQ108 > > C- xx > > > > S- KQJxx S- Axx > > H- void H- xxx > > D- Kxxx D- x > > C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > > > (Marv) > > S- xxx > > H- AQxxx > > D- Jxxx > > C- J > > > > The bidding: > > > > West North East South > > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > > 4S P P ** 5H > > X ** P 5S All pass > > > > * Explained as a limit raise > > ** Break in tempo > > Rik Terveen ruled to disallow 5S and added this footnote: > If the double says 'I only want to defend if you really want to' >, as some people play it, the story is entirely different. But I assume > that that is not the case here. Do we know if 1S (2H) 3H (4H) is a forcing-pass situation for this pair? Whether E-W play forcing passes here or not, the 4S bid conveyed a clear refusal to defend 4H, and gave up a chance to indicate a clear desire to defend 4H by doubling it. That is, West's third round double can only be a hand that, _among hands that can't stomach defending 4H_, has more defensive values than it might. And while I agree that "the opponents' bidding said partner had a void" is a questionable excuse most of the time, the combined effect of 4H, 4S, and 5H is the closest thing I can imagine to pinpointing the void. Absent the hesitation I find pulling to 5S completely obvious. On the actual cards I think West doesn't quite have his double; he could have half a trick more defense than that. With the hesitation, I agree it is tricky. I have a great deal of sympathy for permitting the score to stand, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else ruled it back to 5Hx, and if either ruling got appealed I wouldn't keep the deposit. 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 Jun 13 05:10:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CJABF26426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:10:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CJA4t26420 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:10:05 +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 f5CJ9ma03148 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001901c0f373$0af6a9e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002701c0f312$2598b6a0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:02:23 -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: "Rik Terveen" >(*) If the double says 'I only want to defend if you really want to', as some people play it, the story is entirely different. But I assume that that is not the case here. The break in tempo says that, as in this case. No need for a partnership agreement either way if you can use tempo to clarify a double. 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 Jun 13 05:40:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CJeHx27575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:40:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CJe9t27566 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:40:10 +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 f5CJdra08512 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002801c0f377$3e9b5940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B87D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:34:12 -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 Ton Kooijman wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst'" > > Regardless of how I would have ruled the table ruling is > > typical of the > > arrogant incompetence of ACBL TDs. Is that strong enough, Marv? > > > > If this is meant to be ironical, I am not sure Marvin will understand it. If > it is meant seriously I am not understanding it. > I assumed he was referring to the use of artificial adjustments when obviously a result has been obtained or could have been estimated. The practice is still popular in Southern California, although ACBL-employed TDs are getting away from it. Incompetence, yes. Arrogant? I would prefer "smug." The only arrogance I have observed comes from TDs who don't know the ACBL Alert Procedure, and that has been at NABCs. 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 Jun 13 05:43:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CJhTI27706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:43:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CJhMt27697 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:43:23 +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 MAA27510; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:42:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200106121942.MAA27510@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:45:34 PDT." <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:42:00 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv French wrote: > I have all the info on *this* case, because it came up at my table > in a 20-table afternoon game today. (Two 10-table Mitchell sections, > no duplication, ACBL-approved overall masterpoint awards). > > Vulnerability: None > Dealer: West > > (Alice) > S- xx > H- KJ10xx > D- AQ108 > C- xx > > S- KQJxx S- Axx > H- void H- xxx > D- Kxxx D- x > C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > (Marv) > S- xxx > H- AQxxx > D- Jxxx > C- J > > The bidding: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > 4S P P ** 5H > X ** P 5S All pass > > * Explained as a limit raise > ** Break in tempo > > Heart lead, making only five (declarer didn't realize she had to > trump a diamond). I called the TD when East's hand hit the table > (as suggested by L16A2). She ruled no infraction. When I > questioned this, she said that hesitations call for a score > adjustment only when the hesitator bids something and partner > takes advantage of the hesitation. The opponents smiled at my > ignorance. That's a new one. Usually, the plebeian misunderstanding is that hesitations call for an adjustment only if someone hesitates and then passes. > I didn't argue (much), but asked her to read L16A. She came back > later to tell me that she did read it and her interpretation was > correct. > > Surely the hesitation by West indicated doubt about doubling, which > demonstrably suggests a pull by East. My question is: Would a pass > of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a > heart void. As East, I couldn't even tell for sure whether West had a heart *singleton* or shorter. I've had opponents bid like that on 5-3 fits before. I think pass is clearly an LA here. How can East tell his clubs are going to be worth so much? If West has the wrong hand, a couple diamond leads could kill dummy. -- 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 Jun 13 05:50:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CJoM727987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:50:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CJoBt27974 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:50:12 +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 f5CJnua10167 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003701c0f378$a60144e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010611170102.00793c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B24EB2F.FB235A09@vwalther.de> <3B25CE7E.3040202@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:38:46 -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 From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > > > Since 3S is not alerted the same UI is created. > > > Only if 3S over 2H transfer is alertable in ACBL land. Is it? > No, not if it shows a maximum 1NT and four trumps, as this pair plays it. If it is done with any hand holding four trumps, as some play, then yes. In the absence of competition, I prefer not wasting time with this Alert and have dummy disclose the possible minimum before the opening lead is made. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 05:50:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CJoNS27989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:50:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CJoCt27975 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 05:50:13 +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 f5CJnva10170 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003801c0f378$a6446860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010612104153.008009c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:44:06 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" > > One more point : since the infraction is in the pulling, not in the tempo, > retract the contract to 5H *doubled* (the double occurred before the > infraction). Do this regardless of whether the contract makes or not. Here, > it doesn't. My ruling : -100/+100, no second choice. > > I suppose Marv intends to show our answers to the TD in charge, as we > always do in such a case. Yes indeed. She is a nice person who will appreciate the comments, I'm sure. Unlike the jerk who accused me of filtering out contrary opinions when I showed him BLML comments about an appeal case. > I will thus add a comment : Mrs TD, you should > read carefully the wording of L73C and 73F, which, as you will remark, do > not restrict the field of application of L16. You are not allowed to base > your rulings on any personal interpretation of the law. By doing so, you > committed an infraction to L12C, L81C5, L81C7, L83, L84D. Thank you, Alain Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 06:00:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CK0Ov28372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:00:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CK0Ht28368 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:00:18 +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 f5CK02a11860 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:00:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003e01c0f37a$0efa0580$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:56:13 -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" > Marvin L. French writes > >However the purpose of > >PPs is not to discipline players > > It is important that you realise that the fact that the majority of > people around the world disagree with you. The majority of TDs, you mean. I think the majority of players agree with me. > in this matter is not because > they are using L90 for Disciplinary Penalties. They are not. They are > using it for Procedural Penalties. Rich Colker, NABC Appeals Administrator, writes that "PPs are essentially disciplinary in nature." He knows that considering them as mere procedural penalties leads logically to the assessment of PPs for revoking, leading out of turn, making an insufficient bid, etc., when no damage results. > > L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in the > ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow this > procedure. As with every other law in the book, logically. That is ridiculous. 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 Jun 13 06:20:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CKKQj29071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:20:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CKKKt29066 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:20:21 +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 f5CKK4a15527 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005201c0f37c$dbe0a200$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:17:31 -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: "David Burn" > DWS wrote: > > > L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether > > in the ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow > > this procedure. > > No, it doesn't. "Procedure" in the context of a bridge tournament > means counting your cards before looking at them, moving to the right > table, playing within time limits, filling in your convention card > properly, and so forth. As exampled in L90B. > Procedural penalties for not doing things like this are at > the TD's discretion. But cheating is not an offence against > "procedure", and to call a fine for cheating a "procedural penalty" > is to weasel out. Of course, it is the kind of weaselling out that > happens all the time, > but that does not make it the right thing to do. PPs are being assessed not merely for infractions that could involve cheating, but for some in which there is no implication of possible cheating. These include MI and inadvertent or ignorant UI, when the Laws addressing them are considered to provide insufficient deterrence. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA (Recent craniotomy pronounced a success today--whew!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 06:28:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CKSes29379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:28:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5CKSWt29368 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:28:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 159ulW-0009Jo-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:27:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reg Busch writes >At a small country congress recently, I had to rule in this situation. >South dealer, EW vul. >S W N E >1H 1S P Dbl > >I carefully explained the Law, and East changed her bid to 2H, doubled by >South. result: EW +670 for a top board. > >Here were the hands: > > 10763 > - > 875 > K107632 >KJ985 Q2 >7 AJ109642 >K104 Q93 >A984 J > A4 > KQ853 > AJ62 > Q5 >A classic law 23 and 72B1 situation. If I correctly understand the >consensus on this, in deciding on 'could have known' we don't consider this >specific East but a notional East knowledgeable in the laws and not overly >fussy about ethics. If this notional East 'could have known' then we >automatically adjust the score. > >My problem was that this particular EW were novices only a few months out >of classes, and playing in their first congress. I had to carefully spell >out East's options for her. I felt confident that this East would not have >known that her infraction could benefit her side.It is just possible, I >suppose, that this East had met this situation before in her brief bridge >experience, and had thought 'What a cute trick. I must try that when I get >the chance', but I think that highly unlikely. > >My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does the Law >allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this >particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have known? Of course. This player could not have known, so the Law does not apply to her. Perhaps the best way of looking at it is to compare it with LAs. We decide what the players peers would have done. Well, this players peers are other novices, and they could not have known. I believe this is the way to decide. >My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some >misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure whether the >Law was correctly applied. I believe it was. -- 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 Jun 13 06:29:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CKSsT29395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:28:54 +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 f5CKSdt29378 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:28:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 159ulW-0009Jp-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:28:01 +0100 Message-ID: <3eoc2hAYAgJ7Ewam@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:42:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <003e01c0f2fb$faf5cde0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003e01c0f2fb$faf5cde0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Reg Busch" >> >> My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does the Law >> allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this >> particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have >known? >> >> My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some >> misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure whether the >> Law was correctly applied. >> >While I usually deplore rulings based on "the class of player involved," >which give advantage to the knowns over the unknowns, it seems reasonable to >rule that this player could not possibly have known that the irregularity >would be likely to cause damage. You have to be a little flexible when >dealing with novices. Competent Directors do not actually need to know the player to decide the level of competence. >The Law was bent a little, but justice was done. In my view the Law was followed exactly. -- 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 Jun 13 06:29:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5CKT0i29401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:29:00 +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-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 f5CKSjt29388 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 06:28:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 159ull-0009Kj-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:28:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:38:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claims philosophy (Claiming out of turn/Morefaultydirecting) References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B21EEC6.91EF353F@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010611170656.00870100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010611170656.00870100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >AG : thanks for the compliment. Perhaps the easiest way would have been to >registrate at the desk just behind me, so that we lpay one of the first 2 >rounds against eachother ? What an intriguing way of choosing first opponents, so you can arrange whom to play against! In England it is done by random draw, and I think that better and fairer than by registration order - and both are much fairer than by seeding. -- 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 Jun 13 15:10:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5D59QL13225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:09:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5D59It13182 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:09:18 +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 f5D590a24717 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b501c0f3c6$c194c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:07:28 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Perhaps the best way of looking at it is to compare it with LAs. We > decide what the players peers would have done. Well, this players peers > are other novices, and they could not have known. I believe this is the > way to decide. > Can't find anything about "peers" in L16A. An action is either logical or it isn't. The same applies to "could have known." A TD must decide whether this player could have known, not what his peers might have known. Measuring peers, or even deciding who they are, is pure voodoo. 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 Jun 13 15:29:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5D5TTg16360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:29:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5D5TLt16316 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:29:22 +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 f5D5T4a00035 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:29:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c301c0f3c9$8f4c6b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:20:07 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 > > Marv French posted: > > > Vulnerability: None > > > Dealer: West > > > > > > (Alice) > > > S- xx > > > H- KJ10xx > > > D- AQ108 > > > C- xx > > > > > > S- KQJxx S- Axx > > > H- void H- xxx > > > D- Kxxx D- x > > > C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > > > > > (Marv) > > > S- xxx > > > H- AQxxx > > > D- Jxxx > > > C- J > > > > > > The bidding: > > > > > > West North East South > > > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > > > 4S P P ** 5H > > > X ** P 5S All pass > > > > > > * Explained as a limit raise > > > ** Break in tempo > > > > > Do we know if 1S (2H) 3H (4H) is a forcing-pass situation for this > pair? 3H was described as a limit raise. This pair was not a regular partnership and are lower level life masters, so I'm sure there was no agreement either way. Certainly a pass to 5H would have been forcing. > > Whether E-W play forcing passes here or not, the 4S bid conveyed a clear > refusal to defend 4H, and gave up a chance to indicate a clear desire to > defend 4H by doubling it. But the 4S bid could have been highly speculative, hoping to push N/S to 5H. > > That is, West's third round double can only be a hand that, _among hands > that can't stomach defending 4H_, has more defensive values than it might. > And while I agree that "the opponents' bidding said partner had a void" is > a questionable excuse most of the time, the combined effect of 4H, 4S, and > 5H is the closest thing I can imagine to pinpointing the void. I would agree if the double had been in the balancing position, or a pass would not be forcing. But a direct double in this situation is played by almost everyone as "I don't want to hear 5S." Does East have the hand to overrule that? I don't think so. > > Absent the hesitation I find pulling to 5S completely obvious. "Obvious" isn't good enough if there is a logical alternative. > On the > actual cards I think West doesn't quite have his double; he could have > half a trick more defense than that. It's a horrible double, holding full values for 4S, a heart void, and (as you say) insufficient defense. > With the hesitation, I agree it is > tricky. I have a great deal of sympathy for permitting the score to stand, > but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else ruled it back to 5Hx, and if > either ruling got appealed I wouldn't keep the deposit. I am surprised that no one has commented on East's break in tempo, although I can't see that this UI caused any problem. I took a chance bidding 5H, which is likely to be followed by 5S P 6S, making. I figured that the break in tempo would probably prevent that outcome. West knew from East's break in tempo that he would bid 5S if she passed, but I don't know what to make of that. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 17:40:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5D7dcq25551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:39:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5D7dVt25545 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:39:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 242A52A4E9B; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:36:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id C321E2A4FE0 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:36:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 10690 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2001 07:36:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 07:36:42 -0000 Message-ID: <3B271793.6010406@interia.pl> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:34:43 +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 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 37e90acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > My question is: Would a pass > of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a > heart void. I have made a poll on a French mailing list and among my team-mates. Generally everybody was very unhappy with the 3H bid. The Frenchmen voted 50-50 for passing and pulling. All team-mates (5 guys) passed making nice and friendly [as usual :-)] comments along the lines "Are you out of your f.. mind, Cibor, to suggest pulling?". So I believe passing is an LA. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland =============================================== Czy Gulczas z Big Brother ma seksualnego garba? http://relacje.interia.pl/id/relacja?cid=9277 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 18:20:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5D8KZo00734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:20:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5D8KRt00697 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:20:28 +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, 13 Jun 2001 10:20:33 +0200 Message-ID: <006a01c0f3e1$a0af2d40$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:19:54 +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 f5D8KUt00709 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 > > Marv French posted: > > > Vulnerability: None > > > Dealer: West > > > > > > (Alice) > > > S- xx > > > H- KJ10xx > > > D- AQ108 > > > C- xx > > > > > > S- KQJxx S- Axx > > > H- void H- xxx > > > D- Kxxx D- x > > > C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > > > > > (Marv) > > > S- xxx > > > H- AQxxx > > > D- Jxxx > > > C- J > > > > > > The bidding: > > > > > > West North East South > > > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > > > 4S P P ** 5H > > > X ** P 5S All pass > > > > > > * Explained as a limit raise > > > ** Break in tempo > > > > > Rik Terveen ruled to disallow 5S and added this footnote: > > > If the double says 'I only want to defend if you really want to' > >, as some people play it, the story is entirely different. But I assume > > that that is not the case here. > > Do we know if 1S (2H) 3H (4H) is a forcing-pass situation for this > pair? > > Whether E-W play forcing passes here or not, the 4S bid conveyed a clear > refusal to defend 4H, and gave up a chance to indicate a clear desire to > defend 4H by doubling it. > > That is, West's third round double can only be a hand that, _among hands > that can't stomach defending 4H_, has more defensive values than it might. > And while I agree that "the opponents' bidding said partner had a void" is > a questionable excuse most of the time, the combined effect of 4H, 4S, and > 5H is the closest thing I can imagine to pinpointing the void. You must agree that 4H, 4S, 5H and _Pass_ would be a lot closer to pinpointing a void than 4H, 4S, 5H and _Dbl_ . IMO, the actual auction pinpoints a singleton. (All assuming that EW know how to play a forcing pass. Otherwise a double is penalty and is usually only pulled with shortness making a pull unauthorized use of UI anyway.) > Absent the hesitation I find pulling to 5S completely obvious. On the > actual cards I think West doesn't quite have his double; he could have > half a trick more defense than that. With the hesitation, I agree it is > tricky. I have a great deal of sympathy for permitting the score to stand, > but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else ruled it back to 5Hx, and if > either ruling got appealed I wouldn't keep the deposit. > > 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 Jun 13 19:16:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5D9G1R06862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:16:01 +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-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 f5D9Frt06855 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:15:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15A6jy-000IW7-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:15:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:48:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003e01c0f37a$0efa0580$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003e01c0f37a$0efa0580$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Marvin L. French writes > >> >However the purpose of >> >PPs is not to discipline players >> >> It is important that you realise that the fact that the majority >of >> people around the world disagree with you. > >The majority of TDs, you mean. I think the majority of players agree >with me. No, I mean the majority of players. Your view is a minority one. >> in this matter is not because >> they are using L90 for Disciplinary Penalties. They are not. >They are >> using it for Procedural Penalties. > >Rich Colker, NABC Appeals Administrator, writes that "PPs are >essentially disciplinary in nature." He knows that considering them >as mere procedural penalties leads logically to the assessment of >PPs for revoking, leading out of turn, making an insufficient bid, >etc., when no damage results. Rich Colker may consider that to be so, but that shows a complete lack of faith in the people that run the game. You do not need to mis-apply the Laws just to stop something happening that no competent SO would consider. >> L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in >the >> ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow >this >> procedure. > >As with every other law in the book, logically. That is ridiculous. Only to you. We are not going to give PPs for every minor infraction, and your suggestion that we will do so if you call a PP a PP is more than ridiculous. -- 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 Jun 13 19:16:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5D9Ftx06857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:15:55 +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-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 f5D9Fit06848 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:15:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15A6jy-000IW6-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:15:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 02:44:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010607143600.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> <001401c0f05e$63ede120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <007301c0f334$f66f1d60$b9c27ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> L73C lays out a matter of procedure, and any TD or AC, whether in >the >> ACBL or not, has a *right* to issue a PP for failure to follow this >> procedure. > >No, it doesn't. "Procedure" in the context of a bridge tournament means >counting your cards before looking at them, moving to the right table, >playing within time limits, filling in your convention card properly, >and so forth. Procedural penalties for not doing things like this are at >the TD's discretion. But cheating is not an offence against "procedure", >and to call a fine for cheating a "procedural penalty" is to weasel out. >Of course, it is the kind of weaselling out that happens all the time, >but that does not make it the right thing to do. No doubt cheating is an offence of this nature, but I am not talking about cheating. A player who does not follow L73C knowledgeably and deliberately may be cheating, but the majority of players who do not follow it because they do not know the Law and/or they do not realise it applies in a particular situation and/or their judgement is different are not cheating: they are failing to follow the procedure laid down in L73C. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 20:05:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DA5E807834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:05:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5DA57t07827 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:05:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.8]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5DA3dc29747 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:03:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:14:40 +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] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is it any surprise ? I don't agree. David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >My problem was that this particular EW were novices only a few months out > >of classes, and playing in their first congress. I had to carefully spell > >out East's options for her. I felt confident that this East would not have > >known that her infraction could benefit her side.It is just possible, I > >suppose, that this East had met this situation before in her brief bridge > >experience, and had thought 'What a cute trick. I must try that when I get > >the chance', but I think that highly unlikely. > > > >My question: In deciding whether a player 'could have known' does the Law > >allow any discretion at all to the Director to take the view that this > >particular player (as distinct from the notional player) could not have known? > > Of course. This player could not have known, so the Law does not > apply to her. > "What a neat little trick ..." was mentioned. The word "could" is very light. Even the smallest possibility is enough. But I would not try to use semantics here. Rather, I would use this Law, always, for everyone, even for those who really "could not have known". I often get the reaction "neat little trick". L23 is there to stop that little trick, and as TD we are often bound to say "sorry, no, this trick does not work, there are other laws dealing with it". By ruling, just this once, that L23 does not apply, we are telling just the opposite to the players who may believe that this is a valid tactic. > Perhaps the best way of looking at it is to compare it with LAs. We > decide what the players peers would have done. Well, this players peers > are other novices, and they could not have known. I believe this is the > way to decide. > > >My decision at the time: I allowed the result to stand, but with some > >misgivings. I believe that justice was done, but I'm not sure whether the > >Law was correctly applied. > > I believe it was. > I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into the world and tells their friends about 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 Jun 13 21:19:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DBIU719978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:18:30 +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 f5DBIMt19971 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:18:23 +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 NAA27586; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:49 +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 NAA22330; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:53 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010613132113.00871aa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:21:13 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:14 13/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into >the world and tells their friends about it. AG : you could avoid it by clearly telling the inexperienced players that what they did was *not* correct, that they go away with it because they didn't known, in all honesty, and that the next time, they will be severely penalized (which is true). Do you think they will tell their friends ? 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 Jun 13 21:38:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DBchl20387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:38:43 +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 f5DBcZt20381; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:38:36 +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 NAA20672; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:33:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA06763; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:37:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010613134127.00876e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:41:27 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3B271793.6010406@interia.pl> References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$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 09:34 13/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >> My question is: Would a pass >> of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a >> heart void. > > > I have made a poll on a French mailing list and among my team-mates. >Generally everybody was very unhappy with the 3H bid. >The Frenchmen voted 50-50 for passing and pulling. >All team-mates (5 guys) passed making nice and friendly [as usual :-)] >comments along >the lines "Are you out of your f.. mind, Cibor, to suggest pulling?". >So I believe passing is an LA. AG : Lord Almighty, deliver me from my friends. I already have to cope with my enemies. I also gave the hand to a teammate, a knowledgeable authority on competitive bidding, not mentioning it was an hesitation problem. His answer, without any expletives, was : '4C would have been an obvious bid on the 1st round (the guy is hot on fit-jumps) ; after this pusillanimous 1st bid, what can I do but pass and hope he took the right decision ? Anyway, with only 3 trumps, I'm not going to overrule and insult him.' Looks like this A is quite L, doesn't it ? Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 22:17:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DCGhk25957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:16:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5DCGZt25953 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:16:36 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA15070; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:15:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jun 13 14:14:17 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 <01K4PYW0D0YS007TB8@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:14:21 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:13:04 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:14:16 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B88B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 09:14 13/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into > >the world and tells their friends about it. > > AG : you could avoid it by clearly telling the inexperienced > players that > what they did was *not* correct, that they go away with it > because they > didn't known, in all honesty, I am not so sure that we can combine both statements: 'not correct' and 'didn't know'. I can't. Well it was not correct to double partner's call, but that penalty was paid for. I lost the hands, but unless this is the only way to play in 2H being the best contract I wouldn't do much. She could have known that doubling and bidding 2H thereafter would probably make her declarer in 2H, not having another possibility to get there. So if that is the case there seems a good reason to adjust the score. Which opens our most persistent discussion whether NS should get an adjusted score too. Which is not necessary so if we apply 72B1. ton and that the next time, they > will be severely > penalized (which is true). Do you think they will tell their friends ? > > > 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 Jun 13 22:22:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DCMRU26049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:22:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5DCMKt26045 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:22:21 +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 f5DCKov07109; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:20:51 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5DCKnL30665; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:20:49 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:20:49 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 NAA07001; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:20:49 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA09067; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:20:48 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:20:48 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200106131220.NAA09067@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, agot@ulb.ac.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:21:13 +0200 > From: alain gottcheiner > > At 09:14 13/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into > >the world and tells their friends about it. > > AG : you could avoid it by clearly telling the inexperienced players that > what they did was *not* correct, that they go away with it because they > didn't known, in all honesty, and that the next time, they will be severely > penalized (which is true). Do you think they will tell their friends ? > Yes. Do players really believe this "next time they will be severely penalised" ? Unless it happens twice in a club with the same director, who will know that they have done "it" again. (Whatever "it" may be: deliberate BOOT, or opening 1NT on a singleton, or a 9 count.) If they do it twice in successive county/district events they might get the same director who might remember from last time, but it is not certain. If they do it again in a national event or an event in a different county/district then the TD will not know they have done it before. (Unless "it" is recorded both times and sent to the national authority, and the national authority notes the coincidence.) I am sure many players take "don't do it again" as licence to keep doing "it". In this case, we can apply "could have known", so let's do so. 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 Jun 13 22:39:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DCcmT26332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:38:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5DCcgt26326 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.33]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010613123719.FAQV4151.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:37:19 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c0f406$67f403c0$2104ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20010613132113.00871aa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:43:10 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' > At 09:14 13/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into > >the world and tells their friends about it. > > AG : you could avoid it by clearly telling the inexperienced players that > what they did was *not* correct, that they go away with it because they > didn't known, in all honesty, and that the next time, they will be severely > penalized (which is true). Do you think they will tell their friends ? > I am sure they will tell their friends - but I am sure their opps will be doing so too.The wrong message may get around. If Law 23 and Law 74B1 had been invoked, the same friends will be told - the message will get round. This player "could" have known and I believe we should rule in that way. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 13 23:03:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DD3MQ26707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:03:22 +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 f5DD3Ft26703 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:03:16 +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 OAA23127; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:58:20 +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 PAA13552; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:01:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010613150607.0087e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:06:07 +0200 To: Robin Barker , hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <200106131220.NAA09067@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 13:20 13/06/01 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > >Unless it happens twice in a club with the same director, who will know >that they have done "it" again. (Whatever "it" may be: deliberate BOOT, >or opening 1NT on a singleton, or a 9 count.) AG : whoops ! That's about 15 times I open 1NT on a 4441 or 5431 hand (with singleton K or Q of course). Last time is 4 days ago. Dya mean I should have been penalised for doing it ? BTW, 13 times out of 15 they didn't care about calling the TD, because the bid seemed quite plausible to them. I think you are generalizing it a little too much : departing from one's system isn't an infraction. Having specific conventions about bare honors in 1NT isn't either (we put it in the 'pre-alert' box of the CC). Deliberate (or possibly deliberate) BOOT is a serious one. Please don't put them all in the same basket. Else, I'm going to be penalized about thrice a session when and where you are the TD. 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 Jun 13 23:17:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DDHWV00305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:17:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5DDHMt00238 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:17:23 +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 f5DDFxv20651; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:15:59 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5DDFxI01864; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:15:59 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:15:59 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 OAA07240; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:15:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA09125; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:15:58 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:15:58 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200106131315.OAA09125@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: agot@ulb.ac.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >Unless it happens twice in a club with the same director, who will know > >that they have done "it" again. (Whatever "it" may be: deliberate BOOT, > >or opening 1NT on a singleton, or a 9 count.) > > AG : whoops ! That's about 15 times I open 1NT on a 4441 or 5431 hand (with > singleton K or Q of course). Last time is 4 days ago. Dya mean I should > have been penalised for doing it ? BTW, 13 times out of 15 they didn't care > about calling the TD, because the bid seemed quite plausible to them. Mine was a bad example for an international forum. In the EBU, you are not allowed (to agree) to open 1NT on a singleton or (at level 3) on a 9 count. Opponents get very excited if you do(!) The TD will often say "don't do it again or you will have an implicit agreement". > I think you are generalizing it a little too much : departing from one's > system isn't an infraction. Having specific conventions about bare honors > in 1NT isn't either (we put it in the 'pre-alert' box of the CC). > Deliberate (or possibly deliberate) BOOT is a serious one. Please don't put > them all in the same basket. > Else, I'm going to be penalized about thrice a session when and where you > are the TD. The point was that you would not be penalised, just told not to do it again. Even thrice in a session in a big event, you might be lucky and get a different TD each time. 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 Jun 13 23:37:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DDaYD07598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:36:34 +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-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 f5DDaOt07552 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:36:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15AAoB-0000lT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:35:45 +0100 Message-ID: <+N5uiJAcDzJ7EwKn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:22:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <00b501c0f3c6$c194c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00b501c0f3c6$c194c300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Perhaps the best way of looking at it is to compare it with LAs. We >> decide what the players peers would have done. Well, this players peers >> are other novices, and they could not have known. I believe this is the >> way to decide. >Can't find anything about "peers" in L16A. An action is either logical or >it isn't. The same applies to "could have known." A TD must decide whether >this player could have known, not what his peers might have known. >Measuring peers, or even deciding who they are, is pure voodoo. We do not just rule by each individual TD and AC member in the world deciding what the Laws mean. We have various methods of making sure that the Laws are applied correctly, through interpretations from the WBFLC, from the various Zones, from SOs, from discussions between TDs, from training, from BLML. Just because something is not written explicitly in the laws does not mean that it is wrong. All authorities use peers in their definitions of LAs, even though the definitions are not the same otherwise. The fact hat I suggest we use a similar approach to "could have known" is not wrong just because the Law does not include the term "peers". -- 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 Jun 14 02:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DG2sp18894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:02:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5DG2jt18883 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:02:46 +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, 13 Jun 2001 08:57:12 -0700 Message-ID: <008801c0f422$08ed2ac0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B88B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:56:44 -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." > > Which opens our most persistent discussion > whether NS should get an adjusted score too. Which is not necessary so if we > apply 72B1. > Better wait until L12C2 is rewritten to give the NOS only its perceived equity in the deal. Oops, forgot. You have L12C3 over there, which allows any sort of score adjustment "to do equity." Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 14 02:39:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DGdIJ28159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:39:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f5DGd4t28086 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 02:39:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ADez-0001A8-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:38:26 +0100 Message-ID: <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:27:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into >the world and tells their friends about it. I am afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their friends that the a TD ignored what the Law said because of his own personal agenda. If you judge a player could not have known then it is not your job to rule otherwise. -- 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 Jun 14 03:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DHkZ714763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 03:46:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5DHkPt14751 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 03:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19644 invoked for bounce); 13 Jun 2001 17:45:01 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-61-213.berlin.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.61.213) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 13 Jun 2001 17:45:01 -0000 Message-ID: <004b01c0f431$1643f0a0$d53d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:06:14 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > I have all the info on *this* case, because it came up at my table > in a 20-table afternoon game today. (Two 10-table Mitchell sections, > no duplication, ACBL-approved overall masterpoint awards). > > Vulnerability: None > Dealer: West > > (Alice) > S- xx > H- KJ10xx > D- AQ108 > C- xx > > S- KQJxx S- Axx > H- void H- xxx > D- Kxxx D- x > C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > (Marv) > S- xxx > H- AQxxx > D- Jxxx > C- J > > The bidding: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > 4S P P ** 5H > X ** P 5S All pass > > * Explained as a limit raise > ** Break in tempo > > Heart lead, making only five (declarer didn't realize she had to > trump a diamond). I called the TD when East's hand hit the table > (as suggested by L16A2). She ruled no infraction. When I > questioned this, she said that hesitations call for a score > adjustment only when the hesitator bids something and partner > takes advantage of the hesitation. The opponents smiled at my > ignorance. Obviously the TD's knowledge of the laws has still room for improvement ;-) > I didn't argue (much), but asked her to read L16A. She came back > later to tell me that she did read it and her interpretation was > correct. > > Surely the hesitation by West indicated doubt about doubling, which > demonstrably suggests a pull by East. My question is: Would a pass > of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a > heart void. Pass is an LA. E has only three spades. Under the assumption that partner is sane and has at least one trump for his double, and at most six spades, there seem to be 18 total trumps. 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 Thu Jun 14 07:56:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5DLttd05627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:55:55 +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-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 f5DLtmt05587 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 07:55:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15AIdF-0007ve-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:56:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:42:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B88B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <008801c0f422$08ed2ac0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <008801c0f422$08ed2ac0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Kooijman, A." >> >> Which opens our most persistent discussion >> whether NS should get an adjusted score too. Which is not necessary so >if we >> apply 72B1. >> >Better wait until L12C2 is rewritten to give the NOS only its perceived >equity in the deal. > >Oops, forgot. You have L12C3 over there, which allows any sort of score >adjustment "to do equity." Most hilarious. Good thing we are not discussing the Laws any more. -- 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 Jun 14 18:03:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5E82Ol26236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:02:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5E82Ft26188 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:02:16 +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 JAA08664; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 09:57:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA09359; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:00:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010614100446.00876d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:04:46 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@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 15:27 13/06/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael writes > >>I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into >>the world and tells their friends about it. > > I am afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their >friends that the a TD ignored what the Law said because of his own >personal agenda. > > If you judge a player could not have known then it is not your job to >rule otherwise. AG : the problem is, this judgement is affected by a chaotic variable : who is the TD ? The only way for a TD to judge 'could not have known' in such a case is because he knows the OS and is sure they don't know. This means that the identity of the TD will determine the issue of the ruling. I understand that some of us, including Herman, may have qualms about that. You see, it indeed depends on the TD's personal agenda - namely on whether the OS is well known to him. I'm afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their friends that the TD applied the Law in a very specific way because he knew the OS. 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 Jun 14 19:16:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5E9DmO03629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:13:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5E9Det03623 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 19:13:42 +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, 14 Jun 2001 11:13:42 +0200 Message-ID: <004101c0f4b2$38b95540$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be><3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au><3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010614100446.00876d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:13:04 +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 f5E9Dit03624 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' > At 15:27 13/06/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >Herman De Wael writes > > > >>I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into > >>the world and tells their friends about it. > > > > I am afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their > >friends that the a TD ignored what the Law said because of his own > >personal agenda. > > > > If you judge a player could not have known then it is not your job to > >rule otherwise. > > AG : the problem is, this judgement is affected by a chaotic variable : who > is the TD ? Any judgment is affected by who the TD is, yet the laws instruct the TD in many cases to use their judgement. > The only way for a TD to judge 'could not have known' in such a > case is because he knows the OS and is sure they don't know. This means > that the identity of the TD will determine the issue of the ruling. I > understand that some of us, including Herman, may have qualms about that. > You see, it indeed depends on the TD's personal agenda - namely on whether > the OS is well known to him. You can hardly call that 'his personal agenda'. It just happens to be so that this director has more information available to him than the other directors. The fact that he has more information only means that he is able to make a better judgment. > I'm afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their friends > that the TD applied the Law in a very specific way because he knew the OS. He didnot apply them in a specific way because he knew them. He applied them to the letter because he knew they were beginners and judged that they could not have known. > > Regards, > > Alain. > > -- > Sincerely, 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 14 20:33:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5EAWjt23799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:32:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5EAWbt23753 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 20:32:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-28.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.28]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f5EAVBc06311 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:31:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B2872ED.AE79D83D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:16:45 +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] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes > > >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into > >the world and tells their friends about it. > > I am afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their > friends that the a TD ignored what the Law said because of his own > personal agenda. > > If you judge a player could not have known then it is not your job to > rule otherwise. > As I started by saying in my reply: how can you ever be certain that someone "could not have known" the implications of a certain infraction. The "could have known" is that the infraction + correction would benefit. The "could have known" in the laws does not refer to the player knowing the particular remedy to a particular infraction. Besides, everybody "could have known" that. Even a beginner during his second lesson could have gotten to a lawbook. All I'm saying is that I don't like the use of the could have known to indicate that a particular player could or could not have known the penalty for a particular infraction. The "could have known" as referring to the benefit is hard enough as it is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 14 22:35:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ECYAp12685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:34:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5ECY1t12636 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 22:34:01 +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 f5ECWZu17739 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 08:32:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010614074547.00b3abe0@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, 14 Jun 2001 08:33:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <3B2872ED.AE79D83D@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@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 04:16 AM 6/14/01, Herman wrote: >As I started by saying in my reply: how can you ever be >certain that someone "could not have known" the implications >of a certain infraction. > >The "could have known" is that the infraction + correction >would benefit. >The "could have known" in the laws does not refer to the >player knowing the particular remedy to a particular >infraction. >Besides, everybody "could have known" that. Even a beginner >during his second lesson could have gotten to a lawbook. > >All I'm saying is that I don't like the use of the could >have known to indicate that a particular player could or >could not have known the penalty for a particular >infraction. The "could have known" as referring to the >benefit is hard enough as it is. It has always been illegal to "pull a fast one" deliberately. Back in the dark ages, if someone barred partner and gained an advantage thereby, it was actionable only if there was reason to suspect that it might have been deliberate. An unfavorable ruling was thus taken as the equivalent of an accusation (or at least a voiced suspicion) of cheating, and, as players started making their living at bridge, so that an accusation of cheating could affect their livelihood, could, and did, lead to lawsuits. So we rewrote the laws, introducing all of those "might have"s and "could have"s, to allow us to make rulings on an objective basis without having to subjectively judge a player's intent. If we now start to judge the "might have"s and "could have"s as a function of what we know about the individual offender, or what we judge to be their level of ability, we are back to making subjective judgments that will differ from one individual to another and, once again, could provide the basis for lawsuits from those who claim that an adverse judgment, which could affect their livelihood, has been rendered unfairly, in cases where another player committing essentially the same offence in essentially the same situation received a less harsh penalty. We will have reintroduced the subjectivity into these rulings that the rewording of the law was designed to eliminate. Barred from making the kind of subjective judgment that was intended, in the now-gone pre-lawsuit days, to punish the deliberate infractors but not the innocent ones, we substitute a different subjective judgment which has little or nothing to do with separating the sharpies from the bumblers. IMO, this would be a step backwards. Some have argued here that fairness requires that when two different individuals commit the same offense in similar situations, they suffer similar penalties. Others have rebutted that that may be what fairness means in real life, but it means something different in bridge, where justice, presumably, is a function of considerations like "the class of player involved". But the reality of player lawsuits has forced TFLB to reflect the more general "real life" view of fairness that would otherwise be imposed by the courts in cases where we might prefer it not to be so, by rendering our judgments on a sufficiently objective basis to meet the fundamental test of fairness stated above. I believe it would be foolhardy to try to move away from the level of objectivity that the relatively recently reworded laws intended to establish. In real life, the law goes out of its way to insure that adjudicators, i.e. judges and juries, have no prior knowledge of the individuals involved in the matter which they will be adjudicating, requiring them to recuse themselves or be excused if they do. This may be impossible in bridge, but the laws should at least require that adjudicators who do have such knowledge make their best efforts to ignore it and render objective judgments that are unaffected by it. While this might move us away from what many see as a kind of special theoretical notion of fairness unique to bridge, it will move us closer to the more generally accepted concept of fairness that I believe the vast majority of our players want and expect from our laws. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 14 23:14:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5EDEGb26912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:14:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5EDE6t26861 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:14:07 +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 PAA02806; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:12:29 +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 PAA08381; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:12:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010614151656.00877680@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:16:56 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' In-Reply-To: <3B2872ED.AE79D83D@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:16 14/06/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Herman De Wael writes >> >> >I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into >> >the world and tells their friends about it. >> >> I am afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their >> friends that the a TD ignored what the Law said because of his own >> personal agenda. >> >> If you judge a player could not have known then it is not your job to >> rule otherwise. >> > >As I started by saying in my reply: how can you ever be >certain that someone "could not have known" the implications >of a certain infraction. > >The "could have known" is that the infraction + correction >would benefit. >The "could have known" in the laws does not refer to the >player knowing the particular remedy to a particular >infraction. >Besides, everybody "could have known" that. Even a beginner >during his second lesson could have gotten to a lawbook. > >All I'm saying is that I don't like the use of the could >have known to indicate that a particular player could or >could not have known the penalty for a particular >infraction. The "could have known" as referring to the >benefit is hard enough as it is. AG : I suggest that the words 'the player could have known' be replaced by 'it was possible to know'. It only means that it was possible, with the information available and the background of what happened at the table, to deduce that it was profitable etc., without reference to a specific player. Look at the difference, on the examples I gave before : South dealer, East, holding strong hearts, OOOT 1C. South disallows the opening, and opens a weak 2H. p-p-D. At the time of the infraction (the OOOT), it was impossible to imagine that the (now penalty) double would be useful, because the information that South has long hearts was not available (and it was less likely, given East's hand). No law 23. Suoth dealer, opens a weak 2H. East, holding 5 chunky hearts, BOOT, disallowed. West must pass, North passes, East doubles. At the time of the infraction, it was possible to realise (given the 2H bid) that the obligation to pass would help E/W, by allowing East to make a penalty double. Even if East did not realise, or was too stupid or too unexperimented, to realise, it was possible to deduce that East would, in average, better off by committing the infraction. L23 fully applies. 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 Jun 15 03:11:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5EHA7l10470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:10:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5EHA1t10457 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 03:10:02 +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 f5EH9Za07879 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:09:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001e01c0f4f4$94f11900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010614074547.00b3abe0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 10:03:57 -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: "Eric Landau" > > It has always been illegal to "pull a fast one" deliberately. Back in > the dark ages, if someone barred partner and gained an advantage > thereby, it was actionable only if there was reason to suspect that it > might have been deliberate. An unfavorable ruling was thus taken as > the equivalent of an accusation (or at least a voiced suspicion) of > cheating, and, as players started making their living at bridge, so > that an accusation of cheating could affect their livelihood, could, > and did, lead to lawsuits. So we rewrote the laws, introducing all of > those "might have"s and "could have"s, to allow us to make rulings on > an objective basis without having to subjectively judge a player's intent. > > If we now start to judge the "might have"s and "could have"s as a > function of what we know about the individual offender, or what we > judge to be their level of ability, we are back to making subjective > judgments that will differ from one individual to another and, once > again, could provide the basis for lawsuits from those who claim that > an adverse judgment, which could affect their livelihood, has been > rendered unfairly, in cases where another player committing essentially > the same offence in essentially the same situation received a less > harsh penalty. We will have reintroduced the subjectivity into these > rulings that the rewording of the law was designed to > eliminate. Barred from making the kind of subjective judgment that was > intended, in the now-gone pre-lawsuit days, to punish the deliberate > infractors but not the innocent ones, we substitute a different > subjective judgment which has little or nothing to do with separating > the sharpies from the bumblers. IMO, this would be a step backwards. > > Some have argued here that fairness requires that when two different > individuals commit the same offense in similar situations, they suffer > similar penalties. Others have rebutted that that may be what fairness > means in real life, but it means something different in bridge, where > justice, presumably, is a function of considerations like "the class of > player involved". But the reality of player lawsuits has forced TFLB > to reflect the more general "real life" view of fairness that would > otherwise be imposed by the courts in cases where we might prefer it > not to be so, by rendering our judgments on a sufficiently objective > basis to meet the fundamental test of fairness stated above. I believe > it would be foolhardy to try to move away from the level of objectivity > that the relatively recently reworded laws intended to establish. > > In real life, the law goes out of its way to insure that adjudicators, > i.e. judges and juries, have no prior knowledge of the individuals > involved in the matter which they will be adjudicating, requiring them > to recuse themselves or be excused if they do. This may be impossible > in bridge, but the laws should at least require that adjudicators who > do have such knowledge make their best efforts to ignore it and render > objective judgments that are unaffected by it. While this might move > us away from what many see as a kind of special theoretical notion of > fairness unique to bridge, it will move us closer to the more generally > accepted concept of fairness that I believe the vast majority of our > players want and expect from our laws. > This is a keeper. Eric's outlook is in keeping with the spirit of the game, of the Laws, and with common sense. The principle should be applied to all situations in which TDs and ACs are currently considering "the class of player" and "peers." Who knows the identity of my peers, and what they would do? It is only known experts who are given "class of player" privileges, going on the assumption that they never do anything stupid. Similarly, known novices are assumed to never do anything smart. Influential players (rich clients, politicos, pros, good customers) often get favorable treatment. TDs should be blind to the identity of a lawbreaker, and if necessary present the matter to the CTD and/or other TDs without saying who is involved. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 15 06:35:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5EKYb025625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:34:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5EKYUt25594 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 06:34:31 +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 L98MGMXP; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:33:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003701c0ed65$c0111a40$07407bd5@dodona> References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:43:46 -0500 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems to me that the ordinary reader of Law 90 might not immediately realize the range of "Procedural" matters that are covered by it. The whole of 90.A and 90.B1-6, 8 and the examples in 90B.7, "(such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.)" do not suggest application of Law 90 to matters leading to an adjusted score at the table where the offence tqkes place. Only the last part of 90.B7 suggests that. Perhaps the examples in 90B.7 might be enlarged (in the next version of the Laws) to cover some things that are not simple mechanical procedural errors. Something like, "...that requires an adjusted score for any contestant (such as ...)." Then, the ordinary reader might be aware of what it means. For example, multiple revokes can lead to an adjusted score. So if they do, a PP might be in order. As it reads now, it is easy to take Marv's view. 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 Fri Jun 15 09:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ENh7h01884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:43:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5ENgut01825 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:43:00 +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 PAA24463 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:41:33 -0800 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:41:25 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Clever, or sloppy? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here's an item that almost came up at my table last night: LHO deals, none vul. No bidding boxes: LHO Pard RHO Our hero ------ ------ ------ -------- mumble mumble 1C 1NT X Pass Pass Pass Our hero catches, say, a 2-point dummy, and goes for 500 when he plays RHO for a couple key cards late in the play, and LHO turns up with a 14-count. "Well, of course you went for 500 instead of 300 against our game," says LHO, "silly to play opener for a 10-count." Our hero blinks in surprise. All three other players nod sagely: they all concur the bidding was 1S Pass 1C 1NT X Pass Pass Pass and our hero accepted the insufficient bid. Director! --- One approach is to read him L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. That's exactly what I would do if the auction had started mumble-mumble-1H and our hero had failed to ask for a review when he obviously needed to know what the previous auction had been. But this case is a little different: he knows third hand bid 1C, and noone called attention to an irregularity or summoned a direction during the auction, before or after the 1NT call. In other words, the *only* legal way for third hand to bid 1C is for first and second hand to both pass. And since he KNEW what the missing calls HAD to have been, he didn't waste time asking for a review when it was obviously unnecessary. Now he claims damage from being led astray by his RHO's illegal action. If you read him 21A, he'll point out he didn't _misunderstand_ anything, merely expected his opponents to be playing by the rules. How much sympathy do you have for this declarer? What adjustment, if any, do you give him? Which law do you use as the basis for 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 Fri Jun 15 09:52:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ENq4h05040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:52:04 +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-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 f5ENpft04899 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:51:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15AgsK-000OTM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:50:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:24:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20010614100446.00876d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010614100446.00876d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 15:27 13/06/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >>Herman De Wael writes >> >>>I'm afraid of the consequences when this pair goes out into >>>the world and tells their friends about it. >> >> I am afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their >>friends that the a TD ignored what the Law said because of his own >>personal agenda. >> >> If you judge a player could not have known then it is not your job to >>rule otherwise. > >AG : the problem is, this judgement is affected by a chaotic variable : who >is the TD ? The only way for a TD to judge 'could not have known' in such a >case is because he knows the OS and is sure they don't know. This means >that the identity of the TD will determine the issue of the ruling. I >understand that some of us, including Herman, may have qualms about that. >You see, it indeed depends on the TD's personal agenda - namely on whether >the OS is well known to him. >I'm afraid of the consequences when a pair goes out and tells their friends >that the TD applied the Law in a very specific way because he knew the OS. I expect to know that a pair is very inexperienced when I have talked to them. I expect to know various things about players I talk to. It is not just players I know whose level I adduce. -- 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 Jun 15 10:31:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5F0Uc118632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:30:38 +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-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 f5F0UUt18582 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:30:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15AhTr-0001Zv-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:28:57 +0100 Message-ID: <$8Ix$UJ3AVK7EwQa@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 01:00:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Classic 'could have known' References: <3.0.1.32.20010612092057.006966ec@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3B2712E0.F268DD0D@village.uunet.be> <6Z4v3RCZh3J7EwLO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3B2872ED.AE79D83D@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010614074547.00b3abe0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010614074547.00b3abe0@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >In real life, the law goes out of its way to insure that adjudicators, >i.e. judges and juries, have no prior knowledge of the individuals >involved in the matter which they will be adjudicating, requiring them >to recuse themselves or be excused if they do. But the information discovered in the courtroom is used, yes? As I have pointed out, it is not prior knowledge that is the main thing that good TDs use: it is information gleaned during the process. That *is* used in a court of Law, and thus is not different. > This may be impossible >in bridge, but the laws should at least require that adjudicators who >do have such knowledge make their best efforts to ignore it and render >objective judgments that are unaffected by it. While this might move >us away from what many see as a kind of special theoretical notion of >fairness unique to bridge, it will move us closer to the more generally >accepted concept of fairness that I believe the vast majority of our >players want and expect from our laws. It is an enormous jump to assume that people want us to rule deliberately wrong just as their expectation of fairness. -- 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 Jun 15 11:04:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5F13Lo29945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:03:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5F13Et29913 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:03:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP16.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.16]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA22026 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:01:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: [BLML] False alert Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:01:41 -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 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, Last week in a local tournament this hand was played: North (dealer) A K 9 6 K Q 10 8 8 7 K 10 5 West East J 3 Q 7 5 2 A J 7 6 4 A K Q 9 J 10 5 3 Q J 8 2 6 4 3 South 10 8 4 9 5 3 2 6 4 2 A 9 7 E-W vulnerable, the auction was: N E S W 1NT P P X P 2D! P 2H P 2S (Q)P 3D (all P) E-W play Astro. The X shows values and W hoped for a penalty. When E tried to escape to 2D, W falsely alerted (thinking 2D was a transfer to 2H ???). South did not asked about the alert at this moment. West bid 2H (the transfer). When East bid 2S, South asked about the alert and was told "I think it was a transfer to 2H." The final contract was 3D making 3. After the hand, South called the TD asking him to correct the score to 2H pretending that East had use the false alert as an illicit information coming from partner and should normally P 2H. East said that they never played a transfer on such a X and did not knew why West alerted before bidding 2S (trying to find a contract). The TD changed the score to an AVG- (horror....). E-W appealed, but the AC let the AVG- stand. Your opinion. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 15 11:15:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5F1EjV03943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:14:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5F1Ect03903 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:14:39 +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 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:09:02 -0700 Message-ID: <003d01c0f538$4b2280e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009401c0ed44$2cc8f3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] PPs at Anaheim NABC Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:12:44 -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: "Robert E. Harris" I had decided to ignore this thread, having said all I have to say. When I see something from Robert, Eric, David Burn, and some others, I can't resist opening the e-mail to see what they have to say. > It seems to me that the ordinary reader of Law 90 might not immediately > realize the range of "Procedural" matters that are covered by it. Not only the ordinary reader, but nearly every English major or professional writer, bridge player or not, to whom I have shown L90. The "range" is illustrated by L90B, they all agree. Your wife is a retired English teacher, Robert. What does she think? For at least 60 years that is the way this Law was interpreted, and now, with no significant change in language, PPs are extended to cover infractions that are hardly procedural errors (in this context). > The > whole of 90.A and 90.B1-6, 8 and the examples in 90B.7, "(such as failure > to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.)" do not > suggest application of Law 90 to matters leading to an adjusted score at > the table where the offence takes place. Only the last part of 90.B7 > suggests that. And then only when the offense is of the nature of L90B infractions, as carefully pointed out in parentheses: "(such as failure to count one's cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.)" Thank you, Robert, I hadn't noticed before that L90B7 tries to define for "ordinary readers" what is meant by "errors in procedure." > Perhaps the examples in 90B.7 might be enlarged (in the next version of the > Laws) to cover some things that are not simple mechanical procedural > errors. Something like, "...that requires an adjusted score for any > contestant (such as ...)." Then, the ordinary reader might be aware of > what it means. It means what it says, and I am *not* ordinary. Your suggestion would be giving it a new meaning. "Simple mechanical errors," very good. I must put that in my eventual monograph on PPs. > For example, multiple revokes can lead to an adjusted > score. So if they do, a PP might be in order. Or a revoke for which the penalty is not sufficient redress, presumably. The provisions of the revoke Law are quite adequate. If a player repeatedly revokes, s/he gets a lecture, and if it continues some disciplinary measure might be in order. However, L90 is not meant for the general disciplining of players. That is why the title was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in 1975, with no change in content. Why does no one but me think this change had significance? > > As it reads now, it is easy to take Marv's view. 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 Fri Jun 15 11:46:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5F1k9f14938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:46:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5F1k3t14905 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:46:03 +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 SAA32332; Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:44:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200106150144.SAA32332@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jun 2001 21:01:41 EDT." Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:44:37 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Last week in a local tournament this hand was played: > > North (dealer) > A K 9 6 > K Q 10 8 > 8 7 > K 10 5 > West East > J 3 Q 7 5 2 > A J 7 6 4 > A K Q 9 J 10 5 3 > Q J 8 2 6 4 3 > South > 10 8 4 > 9 5 3 2 > 6 4 2 > A 9 7 > > E-W vulnerable, the auction was: > N E S W > 1NT P P X > P 2D! P 2H > P 2S (Q)P 3D (all P) > > E-W play Astro. The X shows values and W hoped for a penalty. > When E tried to escape to 2D, W falsely alerted > (thinking 2D was a transfer to 2H ???). South > did not asked about the alert at this moment. > West bid 2H (the transfer). When East bid 2S, South > asked about the alert and was told "I think it was > a transfer to 2H." The final contract was 3D making 3. > > After the hand, South called the TD asking him to correct > the score to 2H pretending that East had use the false > alert as an illicit information coming from partner and > should normally P 2H. East said that they never played > a transfer on such a X and did not knew why West alerted > before bidding 2S (trying to find a contract). > > The TD changed the score to an AVG- (horror....). E-W > appealed, but the AC let the AVG- stand. > > Your opinion. If their agreement is really that, after a double, any bidding by E-W is a scramble (trying to find a playable spot), then pass by East (after 2H) is not a LA, and I let the table result stand. Actually, I rule this way if I'm convinced that East thought this was the agreement, even if it actually wasn't. It looks to me like this is the case. If East thinks he's supposed to bid 2D in this hand, then he certainly must think that West's 2H shows a similar hand (can't play in diamonds, gotta run somewhere), and East has no choice but to correct. So I'd ask some questions, but most likely I'd allow the score to stand. -- 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 Jun 15 13:41:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5F3enb25727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:40:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5F3eht25703 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:40:44 +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 NAA06460 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:45:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:30:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Clever, or sloppy? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:36:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/06/2001 01:34:36 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: [big snip] >In other words, the *only* legal >way for third hand to bid 1C is for >first and second hand to both pass. [snip] *Legal* is too broad an adjective. I believe a distinction should be made between crimes and irregularities. To make a deliberate insufficient bid is a crime under Law 72B2. But an inadvertent insufficient bid is merely an irregularity, where there are defined rectifying processes under Laws 21A, 27, 72A5 and 72B3. 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 Jun 15 17:41:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5F7dvh10259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:39:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5F7dqt10255 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:39:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.69]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GEYO5C00.BF9 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:44:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-220.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.220]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8311/6836913); 15 Jun 2001 17:39:03 Message-ID: <002701c0f56d$b33f89e0$dcd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:35:06 +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 Laval Dubreuil from Canada wrote: >Last week in a local tournament this hand was played: > > North (dealer) > A K 9 6 > K Q 10 8 > 8 7 > K 10 5 > West East > J 3 Q 7 5 2 > A J 7 6 4 > A K Q 9 J 10 5 3 > Q J 8 2 6 4 3 > South > 10 8 4 > 9 5 3 2 > 6 4 2 > A 9 7 > >E-W vulnerable, the auction was: > N E S W > 1NT P P X > P 2D! P 2H > P 2S (Q)P 3D (all P) > >E-W play Astro. The X shows values and W hoped for a >penalty. When E tried to escape to 2D, W falsely alerted >(thinking 2D was a transfer to 2H ???). South >did not asked about the alert at this moment. >West bid 2H (the transfer). When East bid 2S, South >asked about the alert and was told "I think it was >a transfer to 2H." The final contract was 3D making 3. > >After the hand, South called the TD asking him to correct >the score to 2H pretending that East had use the false >alert as an illicit information coming from partner and >should normally P 2H. East said that they never played >a transfer on such a X and did not knew why West alerted >before bidding 2S (trying to find a contract). > >The TD changed the score to an AVG- (horror....). E-W >appealed, but the AC let the AVG- stand. > >Your opinion. East had UI. The first question is whether passing 2H is a LA to bidding 2S. My opinion is that passing 2H is not only a LA but is probably what I would do at the table. Partner has shown five or more hearts, making hearts a playable spot, and I have a heap of rubbish with no interest in keeping bidding and giving partner the opportunity to bid too high. On rare occasions I suppose partner could be 4=4=1=4 and 3S (or 2S) could play better than 2H, but it seems anti-percentage to me. The second question is: how would the play go in 2H? After a top spade lead and HK switch, I think NS would make 8 tricks, for plus 300. 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 Jun 16 04:54:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5FIr9i07700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:53:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5FIr1t07664 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:53:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-003.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.195]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA67270 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:51:28 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:52:03 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F5D4.A6283A60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] False alert Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:52:02 +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 Laval Dubreuil from Canada wrote: >Last week in a local tournament this hand was played: > > North (dealer) > A K 9 6 > K Q 10 8 > 8 7 > K 10 5 > West East > J 3 Q 7 5 2 > A J 7 6 4 > A K Q 9 J 10 5 3 > Q J 8 2 6 4 3 > South > 10 8 4 > 9 5 3 2 > 6 4 2 > A 9 7 > >E-W vulnerable, the auction was: > N E S W > 1NT P P X > P 2D! P 2H > P 2S (Q)P 3D (all P) > >E-W play Astro. The X shows values and W hoped for a >penalty. When E tried to escape to 2D, W falsely alerted >(thinking 2D was a transfer to 2H ???). South >did not asked about the alert at this moment. >West bid 2H (the transfer). When East bid 2S, South >asked about the alert and was told "I think it was >a transfer to 2H." The final contract was 3D making 3. > >After the hand, South called the TD asking him to correct >the score to 2H pretending that East had use the false >alert as an illicit information coming from partner and >should normally P 2H. East said that they never played >a transfer on such a X and did not knew why West alerted >before bidding 2S (trying to find a contract). > >The TD changed the score to an AVG- (horror....). E-W >appealed, but the AC let the AVG- stand. > >Your opinion. After finding out what the E/W agreement is (Assume 2D is natural) I rule MI. East then has UI from West's reply. Passing 2H is an LA 2S is suggested over Pass by the UI so I adjust to 2H-5 (W). 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 Jun 16 05:25:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5FJPAN18894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 05:25:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5FJP1t18853 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 05:25:02 +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 MAA18117; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:23:24 -0700 Message-Id: <200106151923.MAA18117@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Peter Gill" cc: "BLML" , adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:35:06 +1000." <002701c0f56d$b33f89e0$dcd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:23:23 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > East had UI. > > The first question is whether passing 2H is a LA to bidding 2S. > > My opinion is that passing 2H is not only a LA but is probably > what I would do at the table. Partner has shown five or more > hearts, making hearts a playable spot, . . . I guess that's the part that we need to find out about. If 2H shows five, then it's clear to rule East has taken advantage of UI and to disallow 2S. But does 2H show five (in the system East thinks they're playing)? I really don't see how it could, just on the evidence we've been given. It looks like double is essentially penalty, and is often on a balanced hand (which will often not have any 5-card suit). East, with a weak hand and afraid that 1NTX would be a terrible score, decided not to sit. He ran to a lousy 4-card suit, knowing full well that West could be something like 3=4=2=4. Why would he do this, unless he thought that West would have the opportunity to scramble to another 4-bagger if he didn't like diamonds? I don't think it's right to assume that 2H promise 5---and I don't think it's right to assume that it doesn't promise 5. I think this is something that needs to be decided by asking questions of the players. -- 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 Jun 16 09:48:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5FNlqX24316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:47:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5FNlit24282 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:47:45 +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, 15 Jun 2001 16:42:04 -0700 Message-ID: <001a01c0f5f5$4f208da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <200106151923.MAA18117@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:45:45 -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" > > Peter Gill wrote: > > > East had UI. > > > > The first question is whether passing 2H is a LA to bidding 2S. > > > > My opinion is that passing 2H is not only a LA but is probably > > what I would do at the table. Partner has shown five or more > > hearts, making hearts a playable spot, . . . > > I guess that's the part that we need to find out about. If 2H shows > five, then it's clear to rule East has taken advantage of UI and to > disallow 2S. But does 2H show five (in the system East thinks they're > playing)? > > I really don't see how it could, just on the evidence we've been > given. It looks like double is essentially penalty, and is often on a > balanced hand (which will often not have any 5-card suit). East, with > a weak hand and afraid that 1NTX would be a terrible score, decided > not to sit. He ran to a lousy 4-card suit, knowing full well that > West could be something like 3=4=2=4. Why would he do this, unless he > thought that West would have the opportunity to scramble to another > 4-bagger if he didn't like diamonds? That's the procedure used by all weak notrumpers in my area, when running to a four-card suit. Bidding four card suits up the line, the hope is to find a 4-4 fit, but they settle for 4-3. They asssume partner has four hearts, and bid 2S, no LA. > > I don't think it's right to assume that 2H promise 5---and I don't > think it's right to assume that it doesn't promise 5. I think this is > something that needs to be decided by asking questions of the players. The answers to those questions are irrelevant. Do you really think E-W would admit that 2H shows five hearts? Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 16 13:16:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5G3Fap05923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:15:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5G3FTt05915 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:15:29 +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 L98MHXKF; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:14:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:24:41 -0500 To: "BLML" From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML] Thursday the 14th at the Club Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thursday was June 14, so Friday the thirteenth came on Wednesdays. Maybe 13 was leaning forward toward Friday. Our club manager/director was busy with her novice game, so another and I were playing codirectors for the early part of the evening. We were playing the 6 table 27 board Howell movement. 1. On round 2, I found the traveller for the board we had just played against pair 8 already had a score for pair 8. I asked the current occupants of table 5 what pair number was playing EW on round 1. They looked at the guide card and said it was pair 8. So I went over to look, and sure enough, it really said 6, not 8. Four pairs had looked and got it wrong. 2. I was called to a table to face this problem: At trick ten, West took a trick with the jack of diamonds. After trick thirteen, west still had a card in his hand. It turned out that he had accidentally picked up the jack of diamonds from the table and restored it to his hand after playing it to an earlier trick. (He was playing with a large bandage on his right hand and using a card holder. He thought he had dropped the jack from his hand, so he put it back.) EW took no tricks after trick ten, so we ruled that trick back to NS. He was one of the original pseudo pair 8. (I called my codirector to help with this one.) 3. My partner was declairer in a 3 NT contract. Late in the play he claimed, conceding the last three heart tricks to the defense. They wanted him to play it out, so he led a heart, his LOH put in the Q, and her partner put in the king, failing to play low on his partner's trick. Now my partner said he was making 11 tricks, rather than the 10 he had claimed. After a bit of defensive dissension, I called the director (me) and ruled play stops after a claim, and since there was no rational line of play leading to 11 tricks, he made 10. I skip a few other interesting events. Questions: 1. What pair number had a player with a large bandage on his hand? 2. What was the pair number of our opponents in the events of #3? With a different series of plays, #2 might have been a wonderful way to get a whole flock of revokes by one player. Back to the Friday the thirteenth on Wednesday delayed effect: I gave myself credit for the usual four gross blunders. We scored over average for the total on those four boards. Bridge sure is fun! 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 Jun 16 17:10:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5G77Hn11754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:07:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.de (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5G778t11746 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:07:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15BA9N-0002NN-01; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:05:41 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.172.199]) by fwd06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15BA9C-08WEwyC; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:05:30 +0200 Message-ID: <3B2B05A8.71E6BF2A@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:07:20 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert References: <200106151923.MAA18117@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan schrieb: > Peter Gill wrote: > > > East had UI. > > > > The first question is whether passing 2H is a LA to bidding 2S. > > > > My opinion is that passing 2H is not only a LA but is probably > > what I would do at the table. Partner has shown five or more > > hearts, making hearts a playable spot, . . . > > I guess that's the part that we need to find out about. If 2H shows > five, then it's clear to rule East has taken advantage of UI and to > disallow 2S. But does 2H show five (in the system East thinks they're > playing)? > > I really don't see how it could, just on the evidence we've been > given. It looks like double is essentially penalty, and is often on a > balanced hand (which will often not have any 5-card suit). East, with > a weak hand and afraid that 1NTX would be a terrible score, decided > not to sit. He ran to a lousy 4-card suit, knowing full well that > West could be something like 3=4=2=4. Why would he do this, unless he > thought that West would have the opportunity to scramble to another > 4-bagger if he didn't like diamonds? > > I don't think it's right to assume that 2H promise 5---and I don't > think it's right to assume that it doesn't promise 5. I think this is > something that needs to be decided by asking questions of the players. > > -- Adam-- Sorry Adam, the notion that doubler will run from 2D into a four-card suit holding 2 diamonds (as in your 3424 example ) is too farfetched. Even 4414 is less likely than x6xx, let alone x5xx. UI is certainly present, and it is suggested to play doubler for less than 5 hearts. How can we ever allow 2S? Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 16 21:18:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5GBH3o28600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:17:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com (juicer35.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5GBGut28594 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:16:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.69]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GF0SV200.IUH for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:21:02 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-242.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.242]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8311/7929136); 16 Jun 2001 21:16:05 Message-ID: <001201c0f655$2d84b9e0$f2d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:12:05 +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: >From: Adam Beneschan: >> West could be something like 3=4=2=4. Why would he do >> this, unless he thought that West would have the opportunity >> to scramble to another 4-bagger if he didn't like diamonds? > >That's the procedure used by all weak notrumpers in my area, >when running to a four-card suit. Bidding four card suits up the >line, the hope is to find a 4-4 fit, but they settle for 4-3. They >asssume partner has four hearts, and bid 2S, no LA. Marv, I think you've misread something - we're not discussing running from a weak 1NT; we're discussing bidding by the doubling side after they've doubled 1NT. The two situations have no similarity. Adam's comments seem most unusual too. "Why would he do this?" Adam asks above. Because East is weak and doesn't want to defend 1NT doubled, obviously. Normally East would have five or six diamonds; this time he happens to have only four diamonds. 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 Jun 17 05:23:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5GJLqu05257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 05:21:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5GJLjt05251 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 05:21:46 +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 f5GJLMa06409 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002d01c0f699$522109e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <001201c0f655$2d84b9e0$f2d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:14:40 -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: "Peter Gill" > Marv French wrote: > >From: Adam Beneschan: > >> West could be something like 3=4=2=4. Why would he do > >> this, unless he thought that West would have the opportunity > >> to scramble to another 4-bagger if he didn't like diamonds? > > > >That's the procedure used by all weak notrumpers in my area, > >when running to a four-card suit. Bidding four card suits up the > >line, the hope is to find a 4-4 fit, but they settle for 4-3. They > >asssume partner has four hearts, and bid 2S, no LA. > > Marv, I think you've misread something - we're not discussing > running from a weak 1NT; we're discussing bidding by the > doubling side after they've doubled 1NT. The two situations > have no similarity. Thanks, Peter. Yeah, I got confused. I was wrong. 2H shows five or six hearts, as a runout from 1NT doubled should never be to a four-card suit. The doubler is unlimited, after all, and running to a four-card suit is unlikely to be successful if 1NT would make. Or even if it would not make, since -180 is better than -300. > > Adam's comments seem most unusual too. "Why would he do this?" Adam asks > above. Because East is weak and doesn't want to defend 1NT doubled, > obviously. Normally East would have five > or six diamonds; this time he happens to have only four diamonds. > *Should have five or six diamonds*," the way I play. There is nothing worse than having 1NT beaten in hand and have partner pull the double to a Qxxx suit (opposite your Jx). However, if E/W have documented evidence that 2H cannot be passed with a doubleton when holding four spades, which I doubt, then the 2S bid is must be allowed. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California (who must read more carefully) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 17 22:44:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5HCfHg22652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:41:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin8.bigpond.com (juicer39.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5HCfBt22648 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:41:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.72]) by mailin8.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GF2RFF00.AQJ for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:45:15 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-7.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.7]) by bwmam02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9d 8317/357688); 17 Jun 2001 22:40:18 Message-ID: <010801c0f72a$1a4524c0$07e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] PABF Championship's Appeals Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:36:15 +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 The Zone 6 (Pacific Asia Bridge Federation) Championships finished this weekend. If you want to fiind their appeals, go to www.abf.com.au and click on "PABF Championships", then select Bulletins which are indexed by Day: Day 5 - Appeals 1 to 4 Day 7 - Appeals 5 and 6 Day 8 - Appeal 7 (hand corrected in later Bulletin) Day 10 - Appeals 8 and 9 Appeals Committee members included Tadayoshi Nakatani (Japan), C S Wu (Singapore), Fan Guangsheng (China), Alan Turner (NZ), Sun Ming (China) and Hu Hsi Chen (Ch Taipei). RANDOM OPINION: The standard of the Appeals Committee decisions seems pretty high to this casual observer. On one appeal, Fan Guangsheng's minority opinion seems closer to the mark IMO, and another decision looks doubtful to the naked eye unless additional info is not shown in the write-up, but the other eight look good to me. A couple of times the AC had to reverse rather curious rulings by the TD. I have included my random opinions in this post, because in previous years, BLML has discussed the fact that BLML omits large tracts of the world, possibly due to language barriers. SIDETRACK: By the way, in the Open, China was a shock non-qualifier for the BB. Chinese Taipei won the PABF Open Championship but in the subsequent Playoffs, Japan and China Hong Kong qualified for the BB. The other two events were much more predictable. In the Women's, China (PABF Winners) and Japan qualified for the VC. The PABF Youth Championship was won by Australia - the Youth Playoffs then resulted in China, Ch Taipei and Thailand qualifying for the WJT in Brazil. 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 Jun 18 04:22:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5HILp524477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:21:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tsmtp2.mail.isp ([195.235.113.141]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5HILit24473 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:21:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from dalton ([217.127.28.61]) by tsmtp2.mail.isp (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id GF36UB03.L50 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:18:11 +0200 Message-ID: <01cc01c0f75a$a4143940$02001aac@dalton> From: "Lucas Eduardo de Mendoza y Contreras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3B1E0C91.AEC46AEB@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010529075213.00ab4910@127.0.0.1> <3B121D6F.415EAB6E@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010531164101.00b08830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010604094211.00ab5860@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010605161510.00ab9870@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010607161613.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010608173240.00868100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B21EEC6.91EF353F@village.uunet.be> <3B233B30.383DABEA@village.uunet.be> Subject: [BLML] Tenerife Championship (June 2001) Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:23:37 +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 Dear members: The Organization Commitee have not in this moment 12.000 euros that they need for the European Championships. Gianarrigo Rona arrived Tenerife on Saturday 9 in a desperate move for save the Championships. The correspondence of the President(Mr.Rona) and the local members is very alarming.These members are not saying him that 6.000 euros for the officers fee are impossible to collect.In other order, the local Trade Unions (CC.OO.-Comisiones Obreras) are organizing a strong protest in front of the Mare Nostrum Resort (the hotel and playing hall) for your abusive practice over the workers. I am a member of the list and spanish player and say you the news when I Know.Best wishes. Lucas Mendoza ======================================================================== -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 18 06:07:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5HK67a08944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:06:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5HK5xt08903 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 06:06:00 +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 VAA20135 for ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:04:23 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:04:58 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:04:57 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 West North East South Pass Pass 1C Dbl 1H Pass 1S 2D 5C 5D Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass Pass Dbl. West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by both sides. Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough defence. The 1C was natural. How do you rule? 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 Jun 18 14:33:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5I4Vs127523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:31:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5I4Vlt27491 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:31:47 +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 ; Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:26:01 -0700 Message-ID: <001201c0f7af$4f216520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:21:47 -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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) > > East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: > S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 > > West North East South > Pass Pass > 1C Dbl 1H Pass > 1S 2D 5C 5D > Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass > Pass Dbl. > > > West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by both sides. > Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 > > East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough defence. > The 1C was natural. > > How do you rule? > Deciding logical alternatives depending on the "class of player" is pure voodoo. Better to pretend we know nothing about East, as is often true for a TD. Or should TDs give tests before ruling? Or ask about masterpoints? East's uncorroborated testimony is irrelevant. Given that the hesitation demonstrably suggests that East take some action, you have to decide whether non-action (pass) is an LA. I don't think it is, with the black suit fits and diamond void. But does the hesitation suggest one specific action over another? I don't see that it does. That leaves East free to do anything he wants. Result stands. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 18 15:10:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5I59v408160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:09:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5I59nt08118 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:09:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2ivfoh4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.226.36]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA16423 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:08:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3B2D8EEC.CFE4ECC5@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:17:32 -0700 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? References: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001201c0f7af$4f216520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > > Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) > > > > East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: > > S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 > > > > West North East South > > Pass Pass > > 1C Dbl 1H Pass > > 1S 2D 5C 5D > > Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass > > Pass Dbl. > > > > > > West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by both > sides. > > Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 > > > > East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough > defence. > > The 1C was natural. > > > > How do you rule? > > > Deciding logical alternatives depending on the "class of player" is pure > voodoo. Better to pretend we know nothing about East, as is often true for > a TD. Or should TDs give tests before ruling? Or ask about masterpoints? I don't agree. I do think that some committees make strange rulings based on this, and I think you must take some care to determine the class before determining logical alternatives. That said, I think this factor seldom makes a difference. > > East's uncorroborated testimony is irrelevant. Why? Why is it irrelevant? I think committees would do a much better job if they learned to listen to everyone. Directors too, for that matter. In this case, E's testimony is crucial. Is pass forcing? A good committee will talk about rules, how they apply to different hands, what calls they would make on similar auctions, to flesh out whether E is credible or not. If pass is forcing, 6C is auto. If NF, I think passing is an LA. [Marv's analysis, which comes to a different conclusion, snipped.] --JRM, Riverbank, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 18 21:32:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IBVvw21908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:31:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5IBVnt21904 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:31:50 +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 NAA23840; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:26:43 +0200 (MEST) 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 NAA21655; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:30:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010618133435.0080e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:34:35 +0200 To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? In-Reply-To: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:04 17/06/01 +0100, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: >S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 > >West North East South > Pass Pass >1C Dbl 1H Pass >1S 2D 5C 5D >Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass >Pass Dbl. > > >West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by both sides. >Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 > >East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough defence. >The 1C was natural. AG : it is generally played that when a game is bid at red, otherwise than by just bidding above the opps' contract (like 1H-1S-4H-4S), an ensuing pass is forcing. This would be the case in the above auction. East made what he did consider right over parnd's FP, namely bid one more. There was a LA, namely double, but since 6C wasn't suggested over Double by partner's FP, which means "I'm equally happy with both Double and 6C", I don't see why I'd rule there was an infraction (well, the very slow pass is a minor irregularity, but shouldn't be sanctioned). 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 Jun 19 00:00:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IDxar25212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:59:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5IDxSt25168 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:59:29 +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 JAA28114 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id JAA24930 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:57:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106181357.JAA24930@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Given that the hesitation demonstrably suggests that East take some > action, you have to decide whether non-action (pass) is an LA. I don't > think it is, with the black suit fits and diamond void. But does the > hesitation suggest one specific action over another? I don't see that it > does. That leaves East free to do anything he wants. Result stands. Two points to make: 1. The comparison for "suggested over another" is of the action taken (6C) with each LA. Thus if pass is a LA, the question is whether the hesitation suggests 6C over pass. Clearly it does. Whether the hesitation also suggests other actions over pass isn't relevant. 2. For purposes of determining LA's, East's peers are the players who chose to bid 5C on the previous round. There were many exploratory moves available below game, and the choice of 5C suggests lack of ambition for slam unless partner has significant extras. But I'd also like to know about West's opening bid style before coming to a final conclusion about whether pass (or even double) was a LA or not. In the end, as John wrote, the ruling most likely comes down to whether West's pass over 5D was forcing or not. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 19 00:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IEe9B28718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:40:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5IEe2t28712 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:40:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f5IEcTD49249 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:38:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010618103812.00b2b170@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, 18 Jun 2001 10:39:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Initially misdirected again; apologies to Fearghal for the double post. >At 04:04 PM 6/17/01, Fearghal wrote: > >>Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) >> >>East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: >>S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 >> >>West North East South >> Pass Pass >>1C Dbl 1H Pass >>1S 2D 5C 5D >>Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass >>Pass Dbl. >> >> >>West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by >>both sides. >>Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 >> >>East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough >>defence. >>The 1C was natural. >> >>How do you rule? > >I would need to find out more about E-W's methods and style. I accept >E's argument that doubling 5D is not an LA (thus putting aside the >issue of whether it was demonstrably suggested by the huddle), so if >E-W can convince me that W's pass was either explicitly or logically >forcing, I allow the result to stand. But on first read I wonder >whether a pass after a long huddle might not be a lot "more forcing" >than a quick pass. IOW, I don't have the information to decide >whether pass is an LA. So I am going to either let it stand at 6CX or >rule it back to 5D, but not to 5DX. 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 Jun 19 01:41:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IFbbT29760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:37:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5IFbVt29756 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:37:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA09343; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:35:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200106181535.IAA09343@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:12:05 +1000." <001201c0f655$2d84b9e0$f2d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:35:37 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > Adam's comments seem most unusual too. "Why would he do this?" Adam asks > above. Because East is weak and doesn't want to defend 1NT doubled, > obviously. So he runs to a four-bagger headed by the jack? I don't know which planet he comes from, but on my planet, -380 (1NT doubled making an overtrick) is a better score than -800 or -1100. OK, after reading everyone else's comments, I suppose that it's most likely that East should systemically have five or more diamonds to make the bid, and that he was taking a gamble. Make that a wild gamble. OK, an insane gamble. My apologies for apparently missing some fundamental basic tenet of bidding before making my comments. If my comments seem "unusual", perhaps it's because no one around my part of the bridge world is insane enough to bid like East, and I was therefore confused as to what was going on. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 19 03:31:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IHV8i22652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:31:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5IHUxt22605 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:31:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-015.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.207]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA61979 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:29:22 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:29:55 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F824.AC3A8000.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:29:52 +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 -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle [SMTP:tsvecfob@iol.ie] Sent: 17 June 2001 21:05 To: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Subject: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 West North East South Pass Pass 1C Dbl 1H Pass 1S 2D 5C 5D Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass Pass Dbl. West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by both sides. Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough defence. The 1C was natural. How do you rule? Further information: West's 1S did not promise 5+ Clubs. West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 19 03:40:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5IHdtq25747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:39:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5IHdmt25706 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 03:39:49 +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 TAA00987; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:37:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id TAA02651; Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:38:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010618194233.007b1b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:42:33 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert In-Reply-To: <002d01c0f699$522109e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <001201c0f655$2d84b9e0$f2d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:14 16/06/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >*Should have five or six diamonds*," the way I play. There is nothing >worse than having 1NT beaten in hand and have partner pull the double to a >Qxxx suit (opposite your Jx). > >However, if E/W have documented evidence that 2H cannot be passed with a >doubleton when holding four spades, which I doubt, then the 2S bid is must >be allowed. AG : it depends heavily on the other parts of the E/W methods. Some pairs in Brussels have the agreement that a 2C or 2D bid is initially Astro, but can also show a strong 2H/2S bid respectively (shown by "repeating" the suit over partner's P/C intermediate bid). In this case, the doubler of 1NT will usually not have more than 5 so-so cards in hearts for the sequence, and I allow the 2S bid (the doubler-than-2H-bidder will usually have 44 majors, or at least 43). Some others insist that a double of a strong NT opening always contain a source of tricks. In this case, East should bid 2C rather than 2 anything, kind of P/C bid. In this case, 2S would clearly be disallowed, since 2H would show a strong suit ... but then East would probably not have bid 2D. If there is no agreement, I think double-then-2H shows at least 5, thus there is no reason to introduce the spades (especially as, playing Astro, West will not have 54 majors). Disallow the 2S bid. N/S will score 300 or perhaps 400. The distinction induced by L12C2 may come into consideration. One more question : if East did not shrug, how came West bid 3D, rather than 3H, over what should have been 54 majors ? West, even more than East, seems to have used some UI, although I don't clearly see which. 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 Jun 19 16:18:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5J6H5C04645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:17:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5J6Gvt04639 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaugb4.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.100]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA25220 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 02:15:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <005c01c0f887$2b747620$0200000a@cder.fda.gov> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200106181357.JAA24930@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 02:14:58 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Given that the hesitation demonstrably suggests that East take some > > action, you have to decide whether non-action (pass) is an LA. I don't > > think it is, with the black suit fits and diamond void. But does the > > hesitation suggest one specific action over another? I don't see that it > > does. That leaves East free to do anything he wants. Result stands. > > Two points to make: > > 1. The comparison for "suggested over another" is of the action taken > (6C) with each LA. Thus if pass is a LA, the question is whether the > hesitation suggests 6C over pass. Clearly it does. Whether the > hesitation also suggests other actions over pass isn't relevant. > ??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could you please explain the logic by which the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I must admit this is far from clear to me. The diamond void tells E that W has any diamonds the side has. If they include any big ones, W may have been thinking of a double. In that case, there are likely to be outside losers, perhaps even a trump loser, and the hesitation would strongly suggest that defending, doubled or not, would be superior to 6C. 6C would be the only LA not suggested by the UI, and therefore the only lawful bid. Is this scenario any less likely than the possibility that W was thinking of advancing to slam? > 2. For purposes of determining LA's, East's peers are the players who > chose to bid 5C on the previous round. There were many exploratory > moves available below game, and the choice of 5C suggests lack of > ambition for slam unless partner has significant extras. But I'd also > like to know about West's opening bid style before coming to a final > conclusion about whether pass (or even double) was a LA or not. > > In the end, as John wrote, the ruling most likely comes down to whether > West's pass over 5D was forcing or not. > -- The question of whether or not the pass was forcing tells us whether or not to consider that pass was a LA. It has absolutely no relevance to whether or not the UI demonstrably suggests that 6C would be more successful than pass, which is the key question. Can E tell from the hesitation whether W was thinking about slam or thinking about doubling? If the answer is no, then no LA is demonstrably suggested, and E is free to bid as he chooses. I think Marv had it right the first time (although I disagree with his views on the E testimony). Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 19 17:46:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5J7k3T20311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:46:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5J7jvt20273 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:45:58 +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 RAA13680 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:50:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:35:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 17:41:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 19/06/2001 05:39:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: [snip] >??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could >you please explain the logic by which the >hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I >must admit this is far from clear to me. > >The diamond void tells E that W has any diamonds >the side has. If they include any big ones, W may >have been thinking of a double. In that case, >there are likely to be outside losers, perhaps >even a trump loser, and the hesitation would >strongly suggest that defending, doubled or not, >would be superior to 6C. 6C would be the only LA >not suggested by the UI, and therefore the only >lawful bid. Is this scenario any less likely than >the possibility that W was thinking of advancing >to slam? [snip] I am another bridge half-wit, and simplistically believe that Pppaaasss... almost invariably asks pard to bid, while Pass asks pard to defend. 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 Jun 19 21:56:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JBt3w01094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:55:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JBsut01088 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:54:57 +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 f5JBrMD38595 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:53:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010619074735.00b3fd60@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, 19 Jun 2001 07:54:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? In-Reply-To: <005c01c0f887$2b747620$0200000a@cder.fda.gov> References: <200106181357.JAA24930@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:14 AM 6/19/01, Hirsch wrote: >??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could you please explain the >logic by which the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I must >admit this is far from clear to me. It's a piece of "that ol' black magic" from the bad old days, when one didn't need detailed agreements as to the circumstances under which a pass was forcing in high-level competitive auctions, as one could simply play that fast passes were not forcing, slow passes were. 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 Jun 19 23:37:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JDa6b05393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:36:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp4.ihug.co.nz (smtp4.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JDa0t05364 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:36:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p209-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.209]) by smtp4.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA03212 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:34:27 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp4.ihug.co.nz: Host p209-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.209] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010620011543.00a5e430@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop3.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:31:38 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: [BLML] established revoke? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This came up in a club session today: Contract 3NT, declarer South. S - H - D J75 C - S J5 S 8 H Q H - D - D 83 C - C - S 4 H 9 D 6 C - Declarer led a diamond to dummy's Jack East discarded the 8S Declarer, seeing both players show out, claimed the rest East disputed the claim saying she was going to win a diamond South pointed out that East had revoked on the previous trick It was clear that until then East was unaware of the revoke. I believe that the revoke has not been established because disputing a claim does not constitute a play to the next trick. Saying "I will win a diamond" is presumably disputing a claim rather than making a counter-claim. However..... When resolving a disputed claim the Laws require the Director to resolve any doubtful points in favour of the non offending side, but as I decided there was no doubt that East would have simply played a diamond to the following trick, thereby establishing the revoke, I ruled that North/South would get the last 3 tricks. What do you think? Regards Patrick Carter Auckland New Zealand -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 00:15:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JEEtF19346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:14:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JEElt19291 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:14:47 +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 f5JED8v09301; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:13:08 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5JED8f06390; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:13:08 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:13:08 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04131; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:13:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA11364; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:13:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:13:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200106191413.PAA11364@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, tripack@ihug.co.nz Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Contract 3NT, declarer South. > > S - > H - > D J75 > C - > S J5 S 8 > H Q H - > D - D 83 > C - C - > S 4 > H 9 > D 6 > C - > > Declarer led a diamond to dummy's Jack > East discarded the 8S > Declarer, seeing both players show out, claimed the rest > East disputed the claim saying she was going to win a diamond > South pointed out that East had revoked on the previous trick > It was clear that until then East was unaware of the revoke. East has not acquiesced so the revoke is not established (L63A3), so must be corrected (L62). The claim should be adjudicated with the revoke corrected, EW can not fail to make the last two tricks. > However..... > > When resolving a disputed claim the Laws require the Director to > resolve any doubtful points in favour of the non offending side, but > as I decided there was no doubt that East would have simply played > a diamond to the following trick, thereby establishing the revoke, I > ruled that North/South would get the last 3 tricks. WBF Laws Commission have said that where there is a revoke by one side and a claim by the other, doubtful points are to be resolved in favour of the claiming side. This example is more fun if the S8 is H8. The revoke is corrected, the H8 is a MPC. West would have UI from seeing H8, which suggests keeping HQ. If throwing the HQ is a LA then South will make the last trick. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 02:13:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JGDOE22749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:13:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JGDIt22745 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:13:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:11:41 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.18.31] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200106191413.PAA11364@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:57:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2001 16:11:41.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[86B9DAE0:01C0F8DA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Robin Barker To: ; Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? | WBF Laws Commission have said that where there is a revoke by one side | and a claim by the other, doubtful points are to be resolved in favour | of the claiming side. I am interested in obtaining a copy in electronic form of this and any reasoning involved. regards roger pewick | 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 Jun 20 03:12:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JHCMC04317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:12:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JHCDt04277 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-013.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.205]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA34226 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:10:34 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:11:07 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F8EB.3654BD20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:11:06 +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 Hirch asked: ??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could you please explain the logic by which the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I must admit this is far from clear to me. West's hesitation suggests he was thinking of either 6C or Double. If he was thinking of Double - why did he not Double? The answer to this question suggests that the hands fit very well and IMHO that demonstably suggests 6C. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 03:18:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JHGpI05814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:16:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JHGht05776 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:16:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-013.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.205]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA35273 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:15:05 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:15:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F8EB.D75EEF60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: [BLML] established revoke? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:15:29 +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 Patrick asked: Contract 3NT, declarer South. S - H - D J75 C - S J5 S 8 H Q H - D - D 83 C - C - S 4 H 9 D 6 C - Declarer led a diamond to dummy's Jack East discarded the 8S Declarer, seeing both players show out, claimed the rest East disputed the claim saying she was going to win a diamond South pointed out that East had revoked on the previous trick It was clear that until then East was unaware of the revoke. I believe that the revoke has not been established because disputing a claim does not constitute a play to the next trick. Saying "I will win a diamond" is presumably disputing a claim rather than making a counter-claim. However..... When resolving a disputed claim the Laws require the Director to resolve any doubtful points in favour of the non offending side, but as I decided there was no doubt that East would have simply played a diamond to the following trick, thereby establishing the revoke, I ruled that North/South would get the last 3 tricks. What do you think? I don't think the revoke is established. East has said he has Diamonds and so will not revoke on the next Diamond lead. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 08:37:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JMZpL15841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:35:51 +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.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JMZgt15796 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:35:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p40-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.40]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id KAA30222 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:34:09 +1200 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p40-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.40] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010620102438.00a60da0@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop3.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:31:15 +1200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: [BLML] re: established revoke? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal wrote: I don't think the revoke is established. East has said he has Diamonds and so will not revoke on the next Diamond lead. Best regards, Fearghal. East was completely unaware that she had not played a diamond to the 11th trick. While I was on the way to the table she had turned over the previous card to verify South's claim about the revoke, because she initially didn't believe him. If declarer had called a card from dummy to trick 12 then East would definitely have established the revoke. Regards Patrick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 09:22:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5JNMVA19253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:22:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5JNMOt19246 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f5JNJQf10832; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:19:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010619074735.00b3fd60@127.0.0.1> References: <200106181357.JAA24930@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010619074735.00b3fd60@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:19:02 -0400 To: Eric Landau From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >It's a piece of "that ol' black magic" from the bad old days, when >one didn't need detailed agreements as to the circumstances under >which a pass was forcing in high-level competitive auctions, as one >could simply play that fast passes were not forcing, slow passes >were. I find it rather disconcerting, to say the least, to contemplate that I might get hanged at the bridge table by some "ol' black magic" from a time before I learned the game. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOy/eV72UW3au93vOEQLGOwCg63xHdqPwgkh4LUiGo0YBDuXWw88An0JE NyPtFHJhv9QLLSJeYDRkhQL5 =9Cqt -----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 Jun 20 13:19:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5K3Iqg11368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:18:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5K3Iht11360 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:18:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaui5j.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.179]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA05838 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:17:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001d01c0f937$6e35a1e0$0200000a@cder.fda.gov> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <01C0F8EB.3654BD20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:16:42 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 1:11 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? > Hirch asked: > > ??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could you please explain the > logic by which the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I must > admit this is far from clear to me. > > > > West's hesitation suggests he was thinking of either 6C or Double. > If he was thinking of Double - why did he not Double? If he was thinking of 6C, why didn't he bid 6C? > The answer to this question suggests that the hands fit very well and IMHO that demonstably suggests 6C. > > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > > Let's look at the problem another way. Suppose E had doubled instead of bidding 6C. 5C turns out to be the limit of the hand, and E/W go for 800. Do you allow the double? Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 16:43:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5K6gmi25215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:42:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5K6get25210 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:42:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.42.81]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GF700M9QUHWUR@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:40:07 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:37:29 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor" Subject: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 To: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor" Message-id: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> Organization: CTD - CACBF 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=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: N/S vul, North dealer N E S W 3S 4H 4S X(h) P 5H all pass The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. Any comments or questions? 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 Wed Jun 20 17:38:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5K7cIV26439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:38:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5K7cAt26432 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:38:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5K7aa717528 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:36:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? 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: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> > East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: > S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 > > West North East South > Pass Pass > 1C Dbl 1H Pass > 1S 2D 5C 5D > Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass > Pass Dbl. I have consulted my non-expert. She didn't particularly like 5C but wasn't sure of a good forcing alternative. When asked her final choice it was "bid six", in about a microsecond. She did admit to briefly considering passing because "partner might not forgive her", she didn't even consider double. Based on my sample of one pass is not an LA (at least by UK standards). 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 Jun 20 18:06:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5K84hk29316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:04:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5K84at29291 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:04:36 +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 SAA20602 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:09:05 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:53:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:00:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 20/06/2001 05:58:12 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: >>It's a piece of "that ol' black magic" from the bad old days, when >>one didn't need detailed agreements as to the circumstances under >>which a pass was forcing in high-level competitive auctions, as one >>could simply play that fast passes were not forcing, slow passes >>were. Ed Reppert replied: >I find it rather disconcerting, to say the least, to contemplate that >I might get hanged at the bridge table by some "ol' black magic" from >a time before I learned the game. The popular expert agreement in ACBL-land to play forcing passes encourages *New Black Magic*. Many partnerships may not be on firm ground in a particular unusual auction as to whether a Pass is forcing or non-forcing. Ethical players make their forcing passes in such auctions in tempo, occasionally with an embarrassing result of +250. New Black Magicians have an advantage in such auctions, since when they are hauled up before the AC, they demonstrate that their partner is merely honouring their system agreement that their Pppaaasss was forcing. IMHO, this New Black Magic can be neutralised by including *forgetting our agreed system if not reminded by pard's tempo* as an LA under L16A. 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 Jun 20 21:18:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KBHks17313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:17:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5KBHct17275 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:17:39 +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 NAA17572; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:12:31 +0200 (MEST) 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 NAA26542; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:15:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010620132025.0080c3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:20:25 +0200 To: "John A. Mac Gregor" , BLML From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 In-Reply-To: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:37 20/06/01 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor wrote: >Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: > >N/S vul, North dealer > >N E S W >3S 4H 4S X(h) >P 5H all pass > >The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. > >East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx > >The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. > >Any comments or questions? AG : there is a LA ; passing the double would be seriously considered by some, who believe that takeout doubles are for taking out, and penalty doubles are for penalties. It was suggested over pass by the timing. The TD and AC were right. It is quite rare that a slow *penalty* double doesn't transmit UI and that there is no LA. 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 Jun 20 22:01:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KC0xx23305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:00:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KC0rt23298 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:00:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.7.97]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010620115917.JZHG283.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:59:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c0f981$2b8667e0$6107ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010620132025.0080c3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:04:32 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "John A. Mac Gregor" ; "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 > At 00:37 20/06/01 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor wrote: > >Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: > > > >N/S vul, North dealer > > > >N E S W > >3S 4H 4S X(h) > >P 5H all pass > > > >The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. > > > >East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx > > > >The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it > >back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. > > > >Any comments or questions? > > AG : there is a LA ; passing the double would be seriously considered by > some, who believe that takeout doubles are for taking out, and penalty > doubles are for penalties. It was suggested over pass by the timing. The TD > and AC were right. > It is quite rare that a slow *penalty* double doesn't transmit UI and that > there is no LA. > What does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? (1)Should I take action, or should I pass? (2)I can see this contract well off but are we missing 6H? (3)Depends on the quality of partner's hand whether this is going off or not. (4)I have so many points that I reckon pard's bid is weak and distributional. If I double - will partner pull it? I don't believe the hesitation suggests any one of these alternatives over another. For this reason I don't believe East has UI. I would allow any action. Regards Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 20 23:51:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KDoo504179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:50:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin2.email.bigpond.com (juicer14.bigpond.com [139.134.6.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KDojt04175 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:50:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.57]) by mailin2.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GF8EN800.6S0 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:54:44 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-102.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.102]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Emblazoned-MailRouter V2.9c 3/4885461); 20 Jun 2001 23:49:26 Message-ID: <01f901c0f98f$49b7dd80$5ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 23:45:34 +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 [The original post is included at the bottom in case anyone retruns from Tenerife in time to see this thread.] Hirsch Davis wrote: >If he was thinking of 6C, why didn't he bid 6C? If he had have bid 6C, he bypasses 5DX. If he had have doubled, he does not bypass 6C. In other words, 6C is unilateral and Double isn't. With eight clubs and a void diamond, partner can always correct 5DX to 6C but with DKQJ he can't correct 6C to 5DX. This is one of several reasons why the hesitator in my experience is more likely to have been considering 6C than considering Double. Let's see. I have a seven count. Partner could have a 4=3=3=4 12 count (or possibly a 4=3=3=3 12 count). Do these circumstances strongly suggest that Pass would be forcing in the absence of strong (e.g written) evidence? I think not. Might 5D be making? Yes. Might they be making 6D? Yes, it's unlikely but not impossible. Was my 5C bid a bit of a punt? Yes. Is the bidding after such a punt scientific? No. Does partner's hesitation help me gauge that not only might 5C have been making, but that 6C may even make? Of course it does. With a 4=3=3=3 pile of rubbish where they are making 5D and we go for a large penalty in 5C or 6C, what will partner do? Pass in tempo, of course, and I will then pass out 5D. I think that, after his partner's hesitation, any action by East other than Pass is beyond belief. However I would refund any deposit money from an appeal, because I am not egotistical or arrogant enough to insist that the appellants be clairvoyant enough to guess my views in what is a fairly complex situation to analyse. Peter Gill Australia. Feargal O'Boyle wrote: Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 West North East South Pass Pass 1C Dbl 1H Pass 1S 2D 5C 5D Pass(H)Pass6C Pass Pass Dbl. West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed by both sides. Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough defence. The 1C was natural. Further information: West's 1S did not promise 5+ Clubs. West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 01:57:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KFudb21357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:56:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KFuUt21346 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:56:31 +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 RAA05317; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:54:37 +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 RAA08340; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:54:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010620175914.0087d280@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:59:14 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? In-Reply-To: <01f901c0f98f$49b7dd80$5ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:45 20/06/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > >Might 5D be making? Yes. Might they be making 6D? Yes, >it's unlikely but not impossible. Was my 5C bid a bit of a punt? >Yes. Is the bidding after such a punt scientific? No. Does >partner's hesitation help me gauge that not only might 5C have >been making, but that 6C may even make? Of course it does. >With a 4=3=3=3 pile of rubbish where they are making 5D and >we go for a large penalty in 5C or 6C, what will partner do? >Pass in tempo, of course, and I will then pass out 5D. AG : no, you won't. Because pass is forcing. At least, it is for a large majority of sound bridge players. Perhaps it was for the incriminated pair. >I think that, after his partner's hesitation, any action by East >other than Pass is beyond belief. However I would refund any >deposit money from an appeal, because I am not egotistical >or arrogant enough to insist that the appellants be clairvoyant >enough to guess my views in what is a fairly complex situation >to analyse. AG : please go one step further. Try being altruistic enough to consider that the pass might have been forcing ; perhaps there is evidence to that. There is a place for such information on the CC. If you find out that pass was indded forcing, it would not be sustenable any more that 'any action other than pass is beyond belief' ; rather, it's the pass that would be. By the way, with a 4333 rubbish, I would not pass, but double. Pass in some way allows partner to go higher (even a quick pass), at least if it is forcing, and thus shouldn't be made on the worst possible offensive hand. Regards, Alain. >Peter Gill >Australia. > >Feargal O'Boyle wrote: >Dealer East, E/W Vul (Teams) >East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: >S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 > >West North East South > Pass Pass >1C Dbl 1H Pass >1S 2D 5C 5D >Pass(H)Pass6C Pass >Pass Dbl. > >West hesitated for at least one minute over the 5D bid - agreed >by both sides. >Result: 6CX +1 N/S -1740 > >East says he never considered doubling 5D because he hadn't enough >defence. The 1C was natural. >Further information: >West's 1S did not promise 5+ Clubs. >West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 02:49:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KGn3923879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:49:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KGmst23871 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:48:56 +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 15CiQF-000JRX-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:53:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:51:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 References: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> In-Reply-To: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john>, John A. Mac Gregor writes >Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: > >N/S vul, North dealer > >N E S W >3S 4H 4S X(h) >P 5H all pass > >The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. > >East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx > >The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. > I always ask myself the question "Would the player have passed a fast happy double?". I'm surprised they returned the deposit. cheers john >Any comments or questions? >John > >John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director -- 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 Jun 21 03:09:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KH8sj26206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:08:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KH8lt26196 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:08:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-001.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.193]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA80752 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:07:06 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F9B3.E4F50920.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:07:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let's look at the problem another way. Suppose E had doubled instead of bidding 6C. 5C turns out to be the limit of the hand, and E/W go for 800. Do you allow the double? Hirsch No. I'm for 5D-3 undoubled. I think Pass is an LA. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 03:12:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KHCAY26377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:12:10 +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.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KHC4t26373 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:12:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-001.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.193]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA81761 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:10:25 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:10:59 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0F9B4.5B99A7C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:10:58 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Seems a good routine ruling. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 03:25:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KHOlQ26992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:24:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KHOdt26981 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:24:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-53.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.53]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f5KHN7s11564 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:23:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <010b01c0f9ae$2f79a1a0$353d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200106181357.JAA24930@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005c01c0f887$2b747620$0200000a@cder.fda.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:26:33 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Hirsch Davis" asked: > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > Given that the hesitation demonstrably suggests that East take some > > > action, you have to decide whether non-action (pass) is an LA. I don't > > > think it is, with the black suit fits and diamond void. But does the > > > hesitation suggest one specific > > > action over another? I don't see that it > > > does. That leaves East free to do anything he wants. Result stands. > > > > Two points to make: > > > > 1. The comparison for "suggested over another" is of the action taken > > (6C) with each LA. Thus if pass is a LA, the question is whether the > > hesitation suggests 6C over pass. Clearly it does. Whether the > > hesitation also suggests other actions over pass isn't relevant. > > > > ??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could you please explain the > logic by which the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I must > admit this is far from clear to me. As West passed, the hesitation shows that W considered bidding. The hesitation thus suggests bidding over pass, i.e. the paaaaaaaass makes the systemically non-forcing pass a forcing pass ;-). Why else would a player who jumped to game rather than investigate slam now consider to bid slam? 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 Thu Jun 21 03:56:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KHukk28896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:56:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KHuet28892 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:56:41 +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 NAA17226 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA13602 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:55:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:55:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106201755.NAA13602@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Let's look at the problem another way. Suppose E had doubled instead of > bidding 6C. 5C turns out to be the limit of the hand, and E/W go for 800. > Do you allow the double? Let's assume the slow pass isn't forcing. (If it is, there is no problem with the 6C bid, as I think we all agree.) As others have said, double would not be allowed after the slow pass. In contrast, pass would be completely legal, and the side gets to keep the result of pass even if it turns to be good. Look at it this way: the slow pass says "I have some values, not a flat minimum." Knowing that partner has values makes pass unattractive relative to both double and 6C; therefore pass is the only legal alternative. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 04:56:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KIu7t07637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 04:56:07 +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 (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KIu0t07598 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 04:56:01 +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 PAA25775 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:01:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106201901.PAA25775@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:01:54 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 June 2001 at 14:51, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john>, John A. Mac Gregor > writes >>Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: >> >>N/S vul, North dealer >> >>N E S W >>3S 4H 4S X(h) >>P 5H all pass >> >>The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. >> >>East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx >> >>The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >>back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. >> > >I always ask myself the question "Would the player have passed a fast >happy double?". > Yes, I would, too. And the answer here, is "I really don't know. Quite possibly not." After all, E is between 1 and 2 defensive tricks (probably closer to 2) short of his bid. If partner is counting on defence from me, as he almost always will (can he possibly have SAQJx and another A? I doubt it), I don't have it, and 4Sx is going to roll. >I'm surprised they returned the deposit. cheers john > I'm not. I think this was the right ruling, and if I had to disagree with it in any way, would choose to turn it back in appeal over keeping the deposit. E simply does not have his bid - even though he would likely make 4H. This one's tough. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 05:33:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KJXbx21106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 05:33:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5KJXUt21071 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 05:33:31 +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 PAA26480 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106201939.PAA26480@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010620175914.0087d280@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010620175914.0087d280@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:39:51 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain, sorry. In tribute to the law that says that all flames must have something just as stupid in them, I sent the first version of this to you privately instead of (as I hope was obvious from the writing) all of BLML. Therefore, it must have seemed as if I was targetting you specifically, and that was definately not my intention. Sorry again. And apologies to all for the tone of the post - which should be more civil, I know. Must be the lack of sleep. mdf On 20 June 2001 at 17:59, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 23:45 20/06/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >> >>Might 5D be making? Yes. Might they be making 6D? Yes, >>it's unlikely but not impossible. Was my 5C bid a bit of a punt? >>Yes. Is the bidding after such a punt scientific? No. Does >>partner's hesitation help me gauge that not only might 5C have >>been making, but that 6C may even make? Of course it does. >>With a 4=3=3=3 pile of rubbish where they are making 5D and >>we go for a large penalty in 5C or 6C, what will partner do? >>Pass in tempo, of course, and I will then pass out 5D. > >AG : no, you won't. Because pass is forcing. At least, it is for a large >majority of sound bridge players. Perhaps it was for the incriminated pair. > I'm getting tired of this. This is at least the fifth poster who's said pass is/should be/might be/could be forcing. While that's certainly true, it has no bearing on this case, which should be obvious from the original post (and most of the instances I'm remembering were replying to the original, so they had a copy of it. This one was replying to a post that had the original attached (and not snipped in reply, which I'm also getting a bit tired of), so it's just as bad). We continually say, here and on rgb, "We need more information. Was...?" Here, the poster goes to the trouble of providing us with the information, and we blissfully ignore it. What a way to encourage proper reporting in future. Fearghal wrote: >>Further information: >>West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. >> So, pass isn't forcing, despite the fact that any two of us, in a pickup partnership, would assume that it is. Why? Because the original poster of the problem said so, that's why. Posters, please read the problem you are replying to? Thanks, Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 07:53:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5KLrLe05531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:53:21 +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-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 f5KLrFt05527 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15Cpu4-000Odb-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:52:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:31:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something that happened in the club several years ago; He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to pay. She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else was out. Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this situation. Any one like to take a shot? I understand that they ruled Av+/Av- at the time. -- Steve Wright -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 10:24:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5L0OFX06141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:24:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5L0O9t06137 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:24:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (user-2ivf607.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.152.7]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA07047 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:22:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010620202634.00c40210@sujja.com> X-Sender: dkent@sujja.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:26:34 -0400 To: BLML From: David Kent Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 In-Reply-To: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:37 20/6/01 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor wrote: >Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: > >N/S vul, North dealer > >N E S W >3S 4H 4S X(h) >P 5H all pass > >The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. > >East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx > >The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. > >Any comments or questions? >John > (I posted a reply that was intended to go to BLML to John directly so I will try to paraphrase my comments from before.) At this level of competition, hi-level doubles tend to show transferrable values as opposed to a trump stack. The East hand is virtually entirely offensive. If West has Jxx xx Axxx Axxx, both 4S and 5H may well make. With the same hand, if West has the club Q, slam is stiff and 4S still probably makes. Even if partner has the dreaded trump stack, say KJx xx Axxx Qxxx, 4S is possibly only down 1 while there is a reasonable chance of making 5H. In fact, I would be tempted to suggest that the hesitation then double is more likely to be surprising spade values (since there was a vul 3 level opener followed by a raise) than values outside spades, thus suggesting that defending would be more likely to be successful than bidding on. What information does the hesitation then double show? That West is unsure of the correct action, but does have some values, some of which may be in spades? What does a double with no hesitation show? That West is unsure of the correct action, but does have some values, some of which may be in spades? What does an in-tempo pass show? Possibly a spade stack or just a weak hand with not much offence or defence. What does a hesitation then pass show? That West is unsure of the correct action, but does have some values, some of which may be in spades? It is this latter condition only in which I would disallow any action by East. Over any of the other situations, he should certainly be allowed to bid his hand. It would require a very weak argument from E-W for me to rule against them at this level of competition, and there is no chance of me voting to keep the deposit. -- Dave Kent -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 10:41:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5L0fLB06158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:41:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5L0fEt06154 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:41:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15CsVS-000EL3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:39:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:53:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Clever, or sloppy? 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 Gordon Bower writes > > >Here's an item that almost came up at my table last night: > >LHO deals, none vul. No bidding boxes: > >LHO Pard RHO Our hero >------ ------ ------ -------- >mumble mumble 1C 1NT >X Pass Pass Pass > >Our hero catches, say, a 2-point dummy, and goes for 500 when he plays RHO >for a couple key cards late in the play, and LHO turns up with a 14-count. > >"Well, of course you went for 500 instead of 300 against our game," says >LHO, "silly to play opener for a 10-count." Our hero blinks in >surprise. All three other players nod sagely: they all concur the bidding >was > >1S Pass 1C 1NT >X Pass Pass Pass > >and our hero accepted the insufficient bid. Director! > >--- > >One approach is to read him L21A: A player has no recourse if he has made >a call on the basis of his own misunderstanding. > >That's exactly what I would do if the auction had started mumble-mumble-1H >and our hero had failed to ask for a review when he obviously needed to >know what the previous auction had been. > >But this case is a little different: he knows third hand bid 1C, and noone >called attention to an irregularity or summoned a direction during the >auction, before or after the 1NT call. In other words, the *only* legal >way for third hand to bid 1C is for first and second hand to both >pass. And since he KNEW what the missing calls HAD to have been, he didn't >waste time asking for a review when it was obviously unnecessary. Now he >claims damage from being led astray by his RHO's illegal action. If you >read him 21A, he'll point out he didn't _misunderstand_ anything, merely >expected his opponents to be playing by the rules. > >How much sympathy do you have for this declarer? Lots. He was jolly unlucky. His stupidity has cost him while on another day it would not have cost him. > What adjustment, if any, >do you give him? Which law do you use as the basis for it? What is the adjustment for? I can see no Law that has been broken, apart from an insufficient bid - and that has been condoned. If someone does not know what the auction is why should the Director give him anything? He should have asked for it to be repeated. -- 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 Jun 21 17:13:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5L77uK07715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5L77mt07681 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:07:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5L76BT02056 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:06:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:06 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? 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: <200106201939.PAA26480@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> > We continually say, here and on rgb, "We need more information. > Was...?" Here, the poster goes to the trouble of providing us with the > information, and we blissfully ignore it. What a way to encourage > proper reporting in future. > > Fearghal wrote: > >>Further information: > >>West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. > >> > So, pass isn't forcing, despite the fact that any two of us, in a pickup > partnership, would assume that it is. Why? Because the original poster > of the problem said so, that's why. When Fearghal said "Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing" I, for one, took this to mean that it had been neither discussed or documented as either forcing or non-forcing by the pair in question. Surely we must also ask the question "is it logically forcing based on general bridge knowledge?". If we believe that 75%+ (insert appropriate threshold) of the player's peers would regard an undiscussed pass in this context as forcing then pass is not an LA. Personally I very much doubt that pass was, by explicit/implicit agreement, non-forcing - happy to be wrong though. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 21 20:35:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAYa021306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:34:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LAYSt21271 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:34:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA03958; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:32:36 +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 MAA22942; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:32:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010621123713.0087f5a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:37:13 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? 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 08:06 21/06/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >When Fearghal said "Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing" I, for one, >took this to mean that it had been neither discussed or documented as >either forcing or non-forcing by the pair in question. Surely we must >also ask the question "is it logically forcing based on general bridge >knowledge?". If we believe that 75%+ (insert appropriate threshold) of >the player's peers would regard an undiscussed pass in this context as >forcing then pass is not an LA. AG : that's exactly what I was trying to convey (clumsily perhaps) ; but Michael and others tell us that only the agreements for the specific partnership are to be taken into account, and that 'no agreement' means pass is not forcing. I can't swallow that, because I have no *specific* agreement about the sequence 2C [GF] -(2S)-Pass, but about 101 % of experts would take the pass as forcing. Surely nobody will disallow a bid by opener after a slow pass ? Well, I feel this case is about the same, and in my usual panel the mark was not 75%, but 88%. Which means that two good players, not knowing eachother, would probably both consider the pass as forcing, even though they have no agreement about it, and even if produced fairly quickly. 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 Jun 21 20:41:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAfAJ23632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:41:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LAf4t23598 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:41:04 +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 MAA04838; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:39:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA27045; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:39:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010621124350.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:43:50 +0200 To: Steve Wright , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks 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 22:31 20/06/01 +0100, Steve Wright wrote: >At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something >that happened in the club several years ago; > >He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven >tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put >her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to >pay. > >She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues >to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played >the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick >after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else >was out. > >Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this >situation. Any one like to take a shot? AG : This is clearly a case of 'unplayable board'. Irregularities put it beyond the borders of recoverability -and sanity. Playing a card you can't have is not a revoke (Mollo) ; neither is playing a card you can't have anymore. I would rule 50%/50%, because both sides are somewhat responsible for the mess. Anyway, this bunch of (perpetual, or momentarily) flying-cow-gazers aren't likely to be in contention for the session. 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 Jun 21 20:52:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAqaw27690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:36 +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 f5LAqKt27608 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15D22k-000Ibz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:50:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:00:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010620011543.00a5e430@pop3.ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010620011543.00a5e430@pop3.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk patrick carter writes >I believe that the revoke has not been established because disputing >a claim does not constitute a play to the next trick. Saying "I will win >a diamond" is presumably disputing a claim rather than making a >counter-claim. True. >However..... > >When resolving a disputed claim the Laws require the Director to >resolve any doubtful points in favour of the non offending side, but >as I decided there was no doubt that East would have simply played >a diamond to the following trick, thereby establishing the revoke, I >ruled that North/South would get the last 3 tricks. > >What do you think? I think what you have done here is very sensible, and the way the Laws ought to be - but I am not convinced it is legal. In fact this is another example really of whether you can do illegalities after a claim. As you will remember I expressed the view that you can because the Laws say so, and Grattan trampled all over me in his hob-nailed boots. Despite Grattan my view is unchanged that the wording of the Law permits illegal plays when adjudicating a claim: it was interesting to me that Grattan produced no counter-argument except that Kaplan said so verbally. Assume for a moment that I am right. If so you are adjudicating the claim with a doubtful point going against the revoker rather than the claimer. That's ok: the WBFLC has made a ruling to that effect. I am coming round to the view that your ruling was not only sensible but legal and correct. Let us see what the WBFLC wrote: '3 The committee gave its attention to Law 63A3 and noted that if a defender revokes and Declarer then claims, whereupon a defender disputes the claim so that there is no acquiescence, the revoke has not been established. The Director must allow correction of the revoke and then determine the claim as equitably as possible, adjudicating any margin of doubt against the revoker.' No, this is clear, and disagrees with us, I am afraid. It says the Director must allow correction of the revoke. I think the WBFLC should re-think this, because I think it clashes with L70A, but they have given us a ruling so we must take it for now. Roger Pewick writes >From: Robin Barker >| WBF Laws Commission have said that where there is a revoke by one >side >| and a claim by the other, doubtful points are to be resolved in >favour >| of the claiming side. >I am interested in obtaining a copy in electronic form of this and any >reasoning involved. The minute is as above. It comes from Bermuda on 12th January 2000. All the WBFLC minutes from Lille onwards may be obtained from http://blakjak.com/wbf_lcmn.htm -- 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 Jun 21 20:52:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAqds27703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LAqOt27645 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15D22m-000ION-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:50:47 +0000 Message-ID: <$vKBb4EmbVM7EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:07:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert References: <200106151923.MAA18117@mailhub.irvine.com> <001a01c0f5f5$4f208da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001a01c0f5f5$4f208da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Adam Beneschan" >> I don't think it's right to assume that 2H promise 5---and I don't >> think it's right to assume that it doesn't promise 5. I think this is >> something that needs to be decided by asking questions of the players. > >The answers to those questions are irrelevant. Do you really think E-W >would admit that 2H shows five hearts? Yes, why not? Humans do not lie routinely, do they? Adam Beneschan writes >Peter Gill wrote: > >> Adam's comments seem most unusual too. "Why would he do this?" Adam asks >> above. Because East is weak and doesn't want to defend 1NT doubled, >> obviously. > >So he runs to a four-bagger headed by the jack? I don't know which >planet he comes from, but on my planet, -380 (1NT doubled making an >overtrick) is a better score than -800 or -1100. How does it compare with -100 or -200, or an occasional +90? I am not suggesting he is necessarily right to bid 2D, but the argument about -380 being better than -800 is just wrong. I have been playing in the weak and mini no-trump crowd all my life, and the only certainty about doubled contracts is that once they are doubled, they are doubled. If you bid 2D on this hand, my guess is it would be doubled one time in four, no more than that. >OK, after reading everyone else's comments, I suppose that it's most >likely that East should systemically have five or more diamonds to >make the bid, and that he was taking a gamble. Make that a wild >gamble. OK, an insane gamble. It is also a matter of agreement. I know many people who remove to bad four-card suits in this situation. >My apologies for apparently missing some fundamental basic tenet of >bidding before making my comments. If my comments seem "unusual", >perhaps it's because no one around my part of the bridge world is >insane enough to bid like East, and I was therefore confused as to >what was going on. It is not as insane as you think. -- 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 Jun 21 20:52:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAqbU27697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LAqKt27609 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15D22k-000Ic0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:50:41 +0000 Message-ID: <8$3BPbETQVM7Ewhw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:55:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks 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 Steve Wright writes >At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something >that happened in the club several years ago; > >He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven >tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put >her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to >pay. > >She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues >to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played >the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick >after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else >was out. > >Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this >situation. Any one like to take a shot? I understand that they ruled >Av+/Av- at the time. I think "shot" is le mot juste - have her shot! Even I might go with A+A- on this 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 Thu Jun 21 20:53:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAqlF27730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f5LAqLt27621 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15D22k-000IOM-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:50:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:07:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 References: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> <3.0.6.32.20010620132025.0080c3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010620132025.0080c3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 00:37 20/06/01 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor wrote: >>Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: >> >>N/S vul, North dealer >> >>N E S W >>3S 4H 4S X(h) >>P 5H all pass >> >>The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. >> >>East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx >> >>The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >>back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. >> >>Any comments or questions? > >AG : there is a LA ; passing the double would be seriously considered by >some, who believe that takeout doubles are for taking out, and penalty >doubles are for penalties. It was suggested over pass by the timing. The TD >and AC were right. >It is quite rare that a slow *penalty* double doesn't transmit UI and that >there is no LA. How often do you defend with an eight-card suit, especially one containing nearly all your points? It might be interesting to know what the definition of an LA is in Caracas. Alain quotes the ACBL approach above, and perhaps pass is an LA in the ACBL. But I bet at the table everyone would take out a fast happy double of 4S. Anne Jones writes >What does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? >(1)Should I take action, or should I pass? >(2)I can see this contract well off but are we missing 6H? >(3)Depends on the quality of partner's hand whether this is going off or >not. >(4)I have so many points that I reckon pard's bid is weak and >distributional. If I double - will partner pull it? > >I don't believe the hesitation suggests any one of these alternatives >over another. For this reason I don't believe East has UI. I would allow >any action. A slow penalty double suggests the player would be not unhappy to hear partner remove it. Thus a slow penalty double on the given sequence suggests taking out, so whether pass is an LA becomes relevant. On a technical note, East has UI because there was a tempo break, which suggests doubt. Whether the UI suggests anything is where Anne and I are differing. It seems from reading RGB to be a mainly American idea to refer to having no UI when there certainly is UI but it does not suggest anything: it makes it easier to get rulings wrong if the distinction between no UI and no useful UI is not understood fully. John (MadDog) Probst writes >I always ask myself the question "Would the player have passed a fast >happy double?". Good question - I wrote the above before I read John's article ... >I'm surprised they returned the deposit. cheers john ... but we do not seem to see the hand the same. -- 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 Jun 21 20:53:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LAqsA27757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LAqYt27686 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15D231-000IOL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:50:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:08:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] An appeal to BLML References: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010608162716.007d8bd0@pop.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Musgrove writes >Our club has never had a director's decision appealed in 40 years. >However, nowadays I agree to submit my more outlandish efforts to >BLML. >TEAMS Both Vul, Dealer South > > North > Q 10 7 6 4 > A 10 6 3 > J 9 > 9 6 > West East > K 2 8 > 4 K Q 8 7 2 > A 5 3 Q 6 4 2 > K Q J 10 5 4 3 8 7 3 > South > A J 9 5 3 > J 9 5 > K 10 8 7 > A > >The bidding went > West North East South > -- -- -- 1S > 5C .....pass pass X > all pass > >In Australia we do not have any Stop cards, or equivalent, or >regulations for compulsory pauses after jump bids. North is a >deliberate player and admitted thinking for considerable time about bidding >5S. The Australian regulations concerning L16 require 75% of >peers to find the bid to rule 'no logical alternative'. I was called >as soon as South doubled. I felt that South's bid was probably OK >and ruled result -800 stands. North South do not have any machinery >to make a pass by North forcing in this situation. >The other table in a teams of 4 match, also reached 5C by a different >auction but played it undoubled. > >Contrary opinions welcomed please, Was the 1S forcing to game? With a 13-count and not exciting distribution if I doubled I would be wondering whether partner was going to leave it in for -750 or take it out for -800. I know that pre-empts cause trouble, and you have to take risks. But not everyone takes as big a risk as inviting partner to bid vulnerable at the five-level on a minimum opening. In my view double was not a 75% action, and I doubt whether it was a 25% action. I would rule it back routinely. alain gottcheiner writes >AG : it doesn't seem right to state X is a 75% action. South's opening is >no more than a minimum, it is about what North should expect in terms of >playing strngth, both in offense and defense, and if North couldn't take >any action I don't see why South should overrule him. After all, South >can't be sure of making three tricks, can he ? Yes, he has two aces, and he >won't always have them. But this isn't enough to make 5C a majority action. >If N/S routinely open all sucking 10-counts, the ruling might be different. It is still an attempt for a big minus, and even for routine 10-count openers I doubt that three in four of them will take action here. Tony Musgrove writes >Thanks for all who replied. I feel thoroughly outvoted. Two supplementary >questions..No-one thought that the auction was relevant. >Had the auction progressed at a more leasurely pace in which North >gets to bid her values in spades, then I agree we could not allow >the double by South after the hesitation. However, to my mind, North's >hesitation after the immediate 5C preempt, followed by the pass seems >to suggest that 5C may be making, and therefoe the only allowable >action by South is a double. North's hesitation shows values. So pass is allowable - and automatic. I cannot see why a hesitation suggests 5C is making - a quick pass suggests 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 Thu Jun 21 20:53:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LArDP27822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:53:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LAqLt27620 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15D22k-000IOL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:50:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 02:24:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? References: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001201c0f7af$4f216520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001201c0f7af$4f216520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Deciding logical alternatives depending on the "class of player" is pure >voodoo. Better to pretend we know nothing about East, as is often true for >a TD. Or should TDs give tests before ruling? Or ask about masterpoints? This is a fairly pointless argument. The authorities have laid down an approach, and for TDs not to use it because Marv does not like it is not a reasonable approach. Sure, you can get the authorities to change their mind, but until you do TDs and ACs have to follow them not ignore them. The class of player involved is part of the definition of LA from most authorities [including the ACBL] and thus must be used. Of course, it is also easy to determine, so I do not understand Marv's objection at all. >East's uncorroborated testimony is irrelevant. Why? alain gottcheiner writes >>East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: >AG : it is generally played that when a game is bid at red, otherwise than >by just bidding above the opps' contract (like 1H-1S-4H-4S), an ensuing >pass is forcing. Do non-experts recognise forcing passes? I would like to hear East on this subject. Hirsch Davis writes >??? For bridge simpletons, such as myself, could you please explain the >logic by which the hesitation demonstrably suggests 6C over pass? I must >admit this is far from clear to me. While I am not saying it necessarily is conclusive in this case, the main thing a hesitation shows *if* the pass is not forcing is extra values. A featureless minimum would know what to do! I think there is little doubt that we accept the 6C if pass is forcing. Thus we need to determine that. If we decide it is not forcing, then we decide what the tempo break shows. 6C is more likely to make opposite extra values than opposite a minimum. Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> >> East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: >> S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 >> >> West North East South >> Pass Pass >> 1C Dbl 1H Pass >> 1S 2D 5C 5D >> Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass >> Pass Dbl. > >I have consulted my non-expert. She didn't particularly like 5C but wasn't >sure of a good forcing alternative. When asked her final choice it was >"bid six", in about a microsecond. She did admit to briefly considering >passing because "partner might not forgive her", she didn't even consider >double. Based on my sample of one pass is not an LA (at least by UK >standards). I think this would be a more convincing argument if the sample included a player who was happy with 5C. Of course if she wanted to make a forcing alternative then she would bid 6C later. alain gottcheiner writes >At 23:45 20/06/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >> >>Might 5D be making? Yes. Might they be making 6D? Yes, >>it's unlikely but not impossible. Was my 5C bid a bit of a punt? >>Yes. Is the bidding after such a punt scientific? No. Does >>partner's hesitation help me gauge that not only might 5C have >>been making, but that 6C may even make? Of course it does. >>With a 4=3=3=3 pile of rubbish where they are making 5D and >>we go for a large penalty in 5C or 6C, what will partner do? >>Pass in tempo, of course, and I will then pass out 5D. > >AG : no, you won't. Because pass is forcing. At least, it is for a large >majority of sound bridge players. Perhaps it was for the incriminated pair. We are told East was a non-expert, and such players often do not play forcing passes. Actually, I never play forcing passes after high-level raises myself. Furthermore, Fearghal wrote later: >>West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. >AG : please go one step further. Try being altruistic enough to consider >that the pass might have been forcing ; perhaps there is evidence to that. >There is a place for such information on the CC. >If you find out that pass was indded forcing, it would not be sustenable >any more that 'any action other than pass is beyond belief' ; rather, it's >the pass that would be. I really do think that it is obvious that Peter's argument is based on the pass not being forcing. >By the way, with a 4333 rubbish, I would not pass, but double. Pass in some >way allows partner to go higher (even a quick pass), at least if it is >forcing, and thus shouldn't be made on the worst possible offensive hand. Of course you double if pass is forcing. It is a whole different situation. In general, with an unsuitable minimum on any auction where you are not forced to bid, you will pass if it is not forcing and double if pass is forcing. -- 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 Jun 22 01:23:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LFN1m03398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:23:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5LFMqt03359 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA14449 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:21:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA20549 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:21:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106211521.LAA20549@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Despite Grattan my view is unchanged that the > wording of the Law permits illegal plays when adjudicating a claim: It seems to me that there are several categories of "illegal plays," and they need not all be treated the same. In one category are leads from the wrong hand. Those can be accepted by the other side if it's to their advantage (L53A). So if declarer claims, and the claim statement includes a lead from the wrong hand, and that lead is to defenders' advantage, I have no doubt we can accept the illegal lead as part of the claim adjudication. It seems to me that revokes after a claim are in an entirely different category. L44C "takes precedence over all other requirements." Thus we cannot consider a revoke as part of notional play after a claim, even if we might like to do so, for example because it was included in the claim statement. The actual case is somewhere in between. East has revoked before the claim, but the revoke isn't established. Does the notional play include East's simply following suit, not noticing the prior revoke and thus establishing it? L44C doesn't prohibit that. While we might like to rule that way in some cases, it then becomes a judgment issue for the TD whether East would or would not notice and correct the revoke. The judgment might be easy in some cases, but because it deals with East's state of mind, it will be difficult in others. While David has no objection to difficult judgment issues that depend on a player's state of mind, many of us have quite strong objections. Fortunately, the WBFLC has given us a clear interpretation. We resolve the "doubtful point" of whether East would notice the revoke against the claimer, and the revoke gets corrected. However, we resolve any doubtful points in the subsequent notional play against the revoker. That seems fair to me, and normally it should be easy to apply. This leads to advice for declarers: if you think opponents have revoked, play another card; don't claim. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 02:01:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LG0uW17250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:00:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5LG0nt17211 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:00:50 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 043282A4D04; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:59:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 4D3D42A4D87 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:59:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18497 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2001 15:59:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 21 Jun 2001 15:59:11 -0000 Message-ID: <3B32194A.30004@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:56:58 +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] Playing with quitted tricks References: <3.0.6.32.20010621124350.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: d4cf4acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 22:31 20/06/01 +0100, Steve Wright wrote: > >> At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something >> that happened in the club several years ago; >> >> He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven >> tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put >> her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to >> pay. >> >> She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues >> to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played >> the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick >> after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else >> was out. >> >> Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this >> situation. Any one like to take a shot? > > > AG : This is clearly a case of 'unplayable board'. Irregularities put it > beyond the borders of recoverability -and sanity. > Playing a card you can't have is not a revoke (Mollo) ; neither is playing > a card you can't have anymore. > I would rule 50%/50%, If *both* pairs are "responsible for mess" than I don't think A/A is the right ruling. Certainly Os shoud get A- for making the board unplayable rather than A. What about the NOs? I am open to an argument if they should get A+, A or A- but at present my view is that they should get A+ as you have no legal obligation to remember what cards have been played so far. Off topic: the whole thing reminds me of one the most incredible ruling I have ever seen. In the city of Rzeszow where I was born and where I started playing bridge there was a director who, as one of the players once put it, "didn't know how to direct but liked that very much". At that time (ten years ago) in Rzeszow we still calculated the results of the tournaments manually - this is important for the whole story. And there was a very old player who had been playing bridge for years but he never won a tournament in his life (there are 20-25 pairs playing in a weekly tournament in Rzeszow so not winning even once is a remarkable achievment in itself). Well, every dog will have his day, as they say, so there came a day when he finally did win our local tournament. Not for long. It was discovered that due some movement error he played two boards twice albeit with different hands (he played them first as South and then as West [in Poland we routinely rotate the boards by 90? after the half of the tournament]). No one noticed that they played the boards they had played already and the results were enetered to the scoresheet. After the error was discovered those "superfluous" results were canceled and the scores were re-calculated. Our old man was still first in the final standings. But after a while he was told that he finished third. What happened? Try to figure out and the see the answer below. Page Down Page Down Page Down Page Down Page Down Page Down He got two PPs for "the lack of recognition of the boards that he had played before in the course of the whole tournament". That man died about a month later and I have a strong suspicion that the bridge players of Rzeszow where the only ones to know the real cause of his death. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------------------- Super tapety na pulpit: http://reklama.interia.pl/promocja/promocja6.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 02:03:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LG3Tj18144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5LG3Nt18113 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:03:23 +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 JAA24729; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:01:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200106211601.JAA24729@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:07:34 BST." <$vKBb4EmbVM7EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:01:40 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > >Peter Gill wrote: > > > >> Adam's comments seem most unusual too. "Why would he do this?" Adam asks > >> above. Because East is weak and doesn't want to defend 1NT doubled, > >> obviously. > > > >So he runs to a four-bagger headed by the jack? I don't know which > >planet he comes from, but on my planet, -380 (1NT doubled making an > >overtrick) is a better score than -800 or -1100. > > How does it compare with -100 or -200, or an occasional +90? > > I am not suggesting he is necessarily right to bid 2D, but the > argument about -380 being better than -800 is just wrong. I have been > playing in the weak and mini no-trump crowd all my life, and the only > certainty about doubled contracts is that once they are doubled, they > are doubled. If you bid 2D on this hand, my guess is it would be > doubled one time in four, no more than that. However, on the original hand, it appeared that the opponents were playing a strong notrump. (Laval didn't say, but the opener had 15 HCP.) I'd think a bad bid would get doubled a lot more often in that situation. > >OK, after reading everyone else's comments, I suppose that it's most > >likely that East should systemically have five or more diamonds to > >make the bid, and that he was taking a gamble. Make that a wild > >gamble. OK, an insane gamble. > > It is also a matter of agreement. I know many people who remove to > bad four-card suits in this situation. I guess my question is: when they run to bad four-card suits, are their partners expected to sit with a doubleton? Do people remove to JTxx suits when their partners aren't allowed to respond without a 5-carder? That's what was hard for me to believe. Oh, well. This is way off topic for a Laws list anyway. But it's been a learning experience for me . . . I'm learning a lot about how the Rest Of the World plays bridge, and making mental notes to have my Double card ready when one of the Rest-Of-The-Worlders comes over here and plays against 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 Fri Jun 22 02:13:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LGDeP21811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:13:40 +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 f5LGDXt21781 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:13:34 +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 SAA17184; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:08:18 +0200 (MEST) 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 SAA09168; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:11:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010621181613.0087fb10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:16:13 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, tripack@ihug.co.nz From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? In-Reply-To: <200106191413.PAA11364@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:13 19/06/01 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >WBF Laws Commission have said that where there is a revoke by one side >and a claim by the other, doubtful points are to be resolved in favour >of the claiming side. AG : those who would like to have it reversed are perhaps influenced by the present problem. Consider a more frequent problem : declarer plays a NT contract with KQxxx plums facing Axx, at pairs. No entry to the length. Everybody follows to the 1st trick. Declarer decides he will play for a 3-2 split unless, of course, LHO shows out (quite sensible, at pairs). Well, LHO shows out. Declarer now calls for a small plum (just to show he knows what tot do) and says 'that's one trick to you, and you don't get any more'. The decision has to be taken in favor of the claimer, because if there had been no revoke he would have made his 5 tricks in the suit. To do it the other way round would be encouraging revokes in such a case. Of course, in the initial case, one could rule one way or the other, but I'm just showing that in some cases you have to rule against the revoker. So, if you want a general rule ... A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 02:14:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LGDng21863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:13:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe53.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5LGDit21839 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:13:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:12:03 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.18.175] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <8$3BPbETQVM7Ewhw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 08:58:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2001 16:12:03.0581 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8D132D0:01C0FA6C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 8:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks | Steve Wright writes | >At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something | >that happened in the club several years ago; | > | >He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven | >tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put | >her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to | >pay. | > | >She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues | >to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played | >the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick | >after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else | >was out. | > | >Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this | >situation. Any one like to take a shot? I understand that they ruled | >Av+/Av- at the time. | | I think "shot" is le mot juste - have her shot! | | Even I might go with A+A- on this one! | | -- | David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am thinking instead that the player would not wait to be shot! As I count there were 6 defective tricks, but maybe it is in fact 13, and just how difficult can it be to correct them? I do have some strong feelings on the matter. I have lost thousands of points because of the unnecessary mid hand interuptions of rude and reckless directors, servants, and phone calls. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 04:45:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LIiX828157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:44:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LIiRt28125 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:44:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-013.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.205]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA15397 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:42:44 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:43:17 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0FA8A.6B3C03E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:43:16 +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 Tim's understanding is a fair reflection of what I wrote: > >>West's Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing. When Fearghal said "Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing" I, for one, took this to mean that it had been neither discussed or documented as either forcing or non-forcing by the pair in question. Surely we must also ask the question "is it logically forcing based on general bridge knowledge?". If we believe that 75%+ (insert appropriate threshold) of the player's peers would regard an undiscussed pass in this context as forcing then pass is not an LA. Personally I very much doubt that pass was, by explicit/implicit agreement, non-forcing - happy to be wrong though. Tim West-Meads E/W may have heard of 'forcing passes' but they neither understand nor play them - knowingly! Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 04:48:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LImVJ29519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:48:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LImPt29484 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:48:25 +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 f5LIj9W14290; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:45:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <$vKBb4EmbVM7EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200106151923.MAA18117@mailhub.irvine.com> <001a01c0f5f5$4f208da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <$vKBb4EmbVM7EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:40:32 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] False alert Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Yes, why not? Humans do not lie routinely, do they? Are you saying that politicians are not human? :-) 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/AwUBOzJBGL2UW3au93vOEQJQhQCgx58tz8w7xveP9JifclgmyZOHDF8AoJ+R P0XsT1DcOrju9eocFbMD5bJb =L8KF -----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 Jun 22 08:32:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5LMTuL12419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:29:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5LMTot12394 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:29:50 +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 IAA19206 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:34:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:19:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Farcing Pass (was Logical Alternative for non-experts?) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:23:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/06/2001 08:23:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One wrote: >>New Black Magicians have an advantage in such auctions, since when >>they are hauled up before the AC, they demonstrate that their partner >>is merely honouring their system agreement that their Pppaaasss was >>forcing. >> >>IMHO, this New Black Magic can be neutralised by including *forgetting >>our agreed system if not reminded by pard's tempo* as an LA under L16A. In reply, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : if you do so, you will penalize *any* bid (or non-bid) after tempo, >because it is always possible that the tempoist's (?) partner forgets his >system, eg it is always a LA. I don't like this at all. I rebut on theoretical and practical grounds. L40A gives a player the right to make a non-systemic call. Therefore, in theory, non-systemic calls are not necessarily a subset of non- logical alternatives. And in practice, partners may differ in their *a priori* interpretations as to whether a Pass is forcing in their agreed system. Take this simple auction: Matchpoint pairs, NS vul WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C Pass 1D Double 3D 4S 5D Pass In the June 2001 Bridge World, 13 MSC panellists stated that South's Pass was forcing, while 19 panellists were equally confident that it was non-forcing. Then there is this common sequence: WEST EAST Forcing Pass Slow Penalty Double Bid, systemically showing a slam try AC members have to evaluate on which side of a fuzzy dividing line West's overall strength is located. So, I believe that Forcing Pass UI should be dealt with just as stringently as Roman Signals UI. 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 Jun 22 10:20:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M0Jnr14627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:19:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5M0Jht14623 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:19:44 +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 15DEeC-000BoQ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:18:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:16:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 References: <001101c0f953$df865b20$512a28c4@john> <3.0.6.32.20010620202634.00c40210@sujja.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010620202634.00c40210@sujja.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 <3.0.6.32.20010620202634.00c40210@sujja.com>, David Kent writes >At 00:37 20/6/01 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor wrote: >>Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: >> >>N/S vul, North dealer >> >>N E S W >>3S 4H 4S X(h) >>P 5H all pass >> >>The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. >> >>East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx >> >>The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >>back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. >> >>Any comments or questions? >>John >> >(I posted a reply that was intended to go to BLML to John directly so I >will try to paraphrase my comments from before.) > >At this level of competition, hi-level doubles tend to show transferrable >values as opposed to a trump stack. The East hand is virtually entirely >offensive. If West has Jxx xx Axxx Axxx, both 4S and 5H may well make. >With the same hand, if West has the club Q, slam is stiff and 4S still >probably makes. > Well, I seem to be outvoted here. Thanks for the comments 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 Jun 22 11:12:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M1C7w14669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:12:07 +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 f5M1Bwt14661 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DFTH-0002eG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:10:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:22:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? References: <3.0.6.32.20010621123713.0087f5a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010621123713.0087f5a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 08:06 21/06/01 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >>When Fearghal said "Pass over 5D was not systemically forcing" I, for one, >>took this to mean that it had been neither discussed or documented as >>either forcing or non-forcing by the pair in question. Surely we must >>also ask the question "is it logically forcing based on general bridge >>knowledge?". If we believe that 75%+ (insert appropriate threshold) of >>the player's peers would regard an undiscussed pass in this context as >>forcing then pass is not an LA. > >AG : that's exactly what I was trying to convey (clumsily perhaps) ; but >Michael and others tell us that only the agreements for the specific >partnership are to be taken into account, and that 'no agreement' means >pass is not forcing. I can't swallow that, because I have no *specific* >agreement about the sequence 2C [GF] -(2S)-Pass, but about 101 % of experts >would take the pass as forcing. Surely nobody will disallow a bid by opener >after a slow pass ? Well, I feel this case is about the same, and in my >usual panel the mark was not 75%, but 88%. Which means that two good >players, not knowing eachother, would probably both consider the pass as >forcing, even though they have no agreement about it, and even if produced >fairly quickly. When I was a little chickadee, many moons ago, I learnt that forcing to game actually meant forcing to game or an opponent being doubled. 2C[FG] 2S Pass is forcing by agreement in my view if 2C is FG. It is a similar sequence to 2C[FG] Pass 2H. In the current case you say >two good >players, not knowing eachother, would probably both consider the pass as >forcing I do not disagree with that, even though I do not play the pass as forcing myself. But we are told in the current scenario that the player was a non-expert: we were not told he was a "good player". In my view, the only time a non-expert takes a pass as forcing is when there was a previous FG call. So I would say that 'two non-expert players, not knowing each other, would very probably both consider the pass as non- forcing'. -- 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 Jun 22 11:12:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M1C9r14670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:12:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5M1Bwt14662 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:11:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DFTK-0002eH-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:10:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:12:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks References: <3.0.6.32.20010621124350.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010621124350.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 22:31 20/06/01 +0100, Steve Wright wrote: >>At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something >>that happened in the club several years ago; >> >>He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven >>tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put >>her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to >>pay. >> >>She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues >>to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played >>the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick >>after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else >>was out. >> >>Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this >>situation. Any one like to take a shot? > >AG : This is clearly a case of 'unplayable board'. Irregularities put it >beyond the borders of recoverability -and sanity. >Playing a card you can't have is not a revoke (Mollo) ; neither is playing >a card you can't have anymore. >I would rule 50%/50%, because both sides are somewhat responsible for the >mess. Anyway, this bunch of (perpetual, or momentarily) flying-cow-gazers >aren't likely to be in contention for the session. You are a hard man, Alain! Do you always check your opponents have the right hand? A+A- please: AA is just 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 Fri Jun 22 11:13:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M1DIo14688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:13:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5M1DCt14684 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DFUX-0002eG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:12:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:48:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling No. 2 References: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005701c0f302$ee259b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >I have all the info on *this* case, because it came up at my table >in a 20-table afternoon game today. (Two 10-table Mitchell sections, >no duplication, ACBL-approved overall masterpoint awards). > >Vulnerability: None >Dealer: West > > (Alice) > S- xx > H- KJ10xx > D- AQ108 > C- xx > >S- KQJxx S- Axx >H- void H- xxx >D- Kxxx D- x >C- Axxx C- KQ10xxx > > (Marv) > S- xxx > H- AQxxx > D- Jxxx > C- J > >The bidding: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 3H * 4H > 4S P P ** 5H > X ** P 5S All pass > >* Explained as a limit raise >** Break in tempo > >Heart lead, making only five (declarer didn't realize she had to >trump a diamond). I called the TD when East's hand hit the table >(as suggested by L16A2). She ruled no infraction. When I >questioned this, she said that hesitations call for a score >adjustment only when the hesitator bids something and partner >takes advantage of the hesitation. The opponents smiled at my >ignorance. > >I didn't argue (much), but asked her to read L16A. She came back >later to tell me that she did read it and her interpretation was >correct. The judgement of the case is not of much interest, and no doubt others will argue it better than me. But somehow it seems important that a soi-disant Director gets some idea of the basics of ruling. It is important to make her realise that players with UI are constrained in their actions by L73C and that this pair showed no such constraint. Also it might be interesting to ask her where the words "when the hesitator bids something" appear in the Laws. >Surely the hesitation by West indicated doubt about doubling, which >demonstrably suggests a pull by East. My question is: Would a pass >of the double be an LA for East? He claimed he could tell West had a >heart void. No doubt he could. When the opponents raise and partner doubles slowly the evidence is there. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 11:17:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M1H6W14706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:17:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5M1Gwt14698 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DFXH-0008wK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:15:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:44:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061113565100.00666@psa836> <3.0.6.32.20010612141507.007fe7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B261ED5.4040909@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B261ED5.4040909@interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >I have never said he is not allowed to; he is on his own here [in the >final of Polish Mixed >Pairs Championship half the field managed to play 5H on a trump holding >void opposite >a singleton (!) after the auction went 1S - 4H (splinter) - 4S - 5H >(void) - pass]. > >What I objected to was the argument that the 4H bid *by itself* reveals >that 2H was intended >as natural and therefore West is allowed to pass *even* if East failed >to maintain the poker face. If West has no UI surely he is allowed to guess that this is the meaning? In the more common case of 1NT - 2H - 2S it is common bridge knowledge that this often means that opener thinks you are playing transfers. normally there is UI to confuse the issue, but if there is not [perhaps behind screens] then is responder not allowed to guess correctly? In England we worry over fielded misbids, but that seems our own interpretation of L40 rather than a general one, and in most places I believe that good guessing is permissible in the absence of UI. Ed Reppert writes >>The announcement of 2H (which is incorrect; it should be an alert here) is UI. > >It is not clear to me that this is correct. The alert procedure >speaks of announcements in regard to three areas, of which transfer >responses to a NT opening or overcall is one. In that area, they say >nothing about interference. However, in specifying announcement of >forcing 1NT responses to 1 of a suit openings, the procedure *does* >say "without interference". If it's mentioned here, why not in the >other area, unless they did not intend to limit announcements there? According to ACBL Alert Regulations by Marvin L. French, San Diego, CA, USA http://blakjak.com/acbl_alt.htm it says [inter alia]: 'ANNOUNCE (Explain partner's call without being asked, and tap the Alert card if in use): 4."Transfer" for diamond-to-heart or heart-to-spade transfer response to any natural notrump opening or overcall, even in competition (or after a 2NT rebid by a strong 2 opener, showing a notrump hand). All other transfers are Alertable.' So, according to Marv it is Announceable. David J Grabiner writes >Announcements are only supposed to be made in certain specific >situations in which the bidding is routine and there should be no UI >problem. A 1NT opening with interference is not one of them. According to Marv's article, unofficially approved by Gary Blaiss, it is - see above. -- 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 Jun 22 11:17:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M1H5L14705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:17:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5M1Gvt14697 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:16:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DFXH-0008wJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:15:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:38:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego ruling References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6ATuHXAWakI7EwT0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <6ATuHXAWakI7EwT0@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French > writes >>Of course the TD was called. After a lot of conferencing, he gave avg+ to >>N/S and avg- to E/W. Alice is eager to know BLML's comments. >> >Regardless of how I would have ruled the table ruling is typical of the >arrogant incompetence of ACBL TDs. Is that strong enough, Marv? Would it not be cheaper for the club to ask the cleaner to come in during the evening and give these sort of rulings? I agree with John's comment. There seems little point in worrying about a Law book when the easy bits of it are ignored. -- 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 Jun 22 12:06:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M25Xo26057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:05:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5M25Nt26000 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DGJs-000EMq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3Eu8QoBVSqM7EwT2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:51:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks References: <8$3BPbETQVM7Ewhw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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 Roger Pewick writes >I am thinking instead that the player would not wait to be shot! As I >count there were 6 defective tricks, but maybe it is in fact 13, and >just how difficult can it be to correct them? > >I do have some strong feelings on the matter. I have lost thousands >of points because of the unnecessary mid hand interuptions of rude and >reckless directors, servants, and phone calls. If it is a recurrent problem then L90 comes to your aid. -- 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 Jun 22 12:06:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M25YG26062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:05:34 +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-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 f5M25Nt25999 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DGJs-000EMo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 03:05:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 02:48:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] established revoke? References: <200106191413.PAA11364@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20010621181613.0087fb10@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010621181613.0087fb10@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 15:13 19/06/01 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >>WBF Laws Commission have said that where there is a revoke by one side >>and a claim by the other, doubtful points are to be resolved in favour >>of the claiming side. > >AG : those who would like to have it reversed are perhaps influenced by the >present problem. I think you have not read what Robin wrote carefully: the WBFLC minute as cited above does mean they have reversed it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 13:39:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M3crv28870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:38:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5M3cjt28829 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.42.74]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GFB001GZBB3JN@saturno.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:35:30 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:05:34 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 To: David Kent , BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000201c0facc$6bc02200$4a2a28c4@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: <3.0.6.32.20010620202634.00c40210@sujja.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ah yes, the level of competition. This was in the Zonal Open Pairs, and featured two members of one of the National Open Teams versus a client/pro pair (the guilty parties). IJohn 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/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Kent" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 6:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 | At 00:37 20/6/01 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor wrote: | >Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: | > | >N/S vul, North dealer | > | >N E S W | >3S 4H 4S X(h) | >P 5H all pass | > | >The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. | > | >East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx | > | >The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it | >back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. | > | >Any comments or questions? | >John | > | (I posted a reply that was intended to go to BLML to John directly so I | will try to paraphrase my comments from before.) | | At this level of competition, hi-level doubles tend to show transferrable | values as opposed to a trump stack. The East hand is virtually entirely | offensive. If West has Jxx xx Axxx Axxx, both 4S and 5H may well make. | With the same hand, if West has the club Q, slam is stiff and 4S still | probably makes. | | Even if partner has the dreaded trump stack, say KJx xx Axxx Qxxx, 4S is | possibly only down 1 while there is a reasonable chance of making 5H. | | In fact, I would be tempted to suggest that the hesitation then double is | more likely to be surprising spade values (since there was a vul 3 level | opener followed by a raise) than values outside spades, thus suggesting | that defending would be more likely to be successful than bidding on. | | What information does the hesitation then double show? That West is unsure | of the correct action, but does have some values, some of which may be in | spades? | | What does a double with no hesitation show? That West is unsure of the | correct action, but does have some values, some of which may be in spades? | | What does an in-tempo pass show? Possibly a spade stack or just a weak | hand with not much offence or defence. | | What does a hesitation then pass show? That West is unsure of the correct | action, but does have some values, some of which may be in spades? | | It is this latter condition only in which I would disallow any action by | East. Over any of the other situations, he should certainly be allowed to | bid his hand. | | It would require a very weak argument from E-W for me to rule against them | at this level of competition, and there is no chance of me voting to keep | the deposit. | | -- | Dave Kent | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 13:42:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M3gCs00024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:42:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5M3g6t29992 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:42:07 +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 NAA05292 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:46:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:31:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:37:33 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/06/2001 01:35:34 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At our AGM tonight, one of the players was reminiscing about something >that happened in the club several years ago; > >He was dummy and his partner was halfway through playing the hand (seven >tricks played) when the cup of coffee she had ordered, arrived. She put >her hand down on the table and rummaged in her handbag for the money to >pay. > >She then picks up the *quitted* tricks instead of her hand and continues >to play. Nobody else at the table noticed, not even when declarer played >the same cards as earlier, honest!. If fact nobody noticed until trick >after trick thirteen when declarer had one card left and everybody else >was out. > >Some of us got to wondering how you would rule if faced with this >situation. Any one like to take a shot? I understand that they ruled >Av+/Av- at the time. >-- >Steve Wright While other responses by blmlers to this problem are agreeing that Av+/Av- should be awarded under L12A2, I disagree. IMHO, the relevant Law is L14B3, and declarer has committed multiple revokes. An identical irregularity was committed by a client of Eddie Kantar. During her first half-dozen legal tricks, she made numerous poor plays, so the opponents were heading for a top. Her play improved on the next half-dozen tricks, as she was able to ruff the other side's winners with trumps she no longer had. (Eddie did not notice what his partner was perpetrating, being in a dazed state due to her previous multiple atrocities.) The TD gave Eddie's opponents a mere Av+ under L12A2, but the AC correctly gave them their rightful top. 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 Jun 22 18:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M883m08374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:08:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5M87tt08370 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:07:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id A4AEC2A4F9A; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:06:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id D3D492A5180 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:06:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 21749 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2001 08:06:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 22 Jun 2001 08:06:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3B32FBF0.7020704@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:04:00 +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] San Diego ruling References: <010101c0f0b1$859e5e00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061015323906.03878@psa836> <000c01c0f295$3a5260a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01061113565100.00666@psa836> <3.0.6.32.20010612141507.007fe7f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B261ED5.4040909@interia.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 3446cacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Konrad Ciborowski writes > >> I have never said he is not allowed to; he is on his own here [in the >> final of Polish Mixed >> Pairs Championship half the field managed to play 5H on a trump holding >> void opposite >> a singleton (!) after the auction went 1S - 4H (splinter) - 4S - 5H >> (void) - pass]. >> >> What I objected to was the argument that the 4H bid *by itself* reveals >> that 2H was intended >> as natural and therefore West is allowed to pass *even* if East failed >> to maintain the poker face. > > > If West has no UI surely he is allowed to guess that this is the > meaning? I thought I made myself clear enough but obviously I didn't (as usual). If West has no UI (i.e. Alice did maintain a poker face) then of course he is free to bid whatever he likes. Good guessing is permissible without UI. But David argued that West, looking the hA himself, can be 100% sure, UI or not, that his partner's 2H was intended as natural. Therefore, David argued, West is allowed to guess correctly *even if he has UI*. And this is what I objected to. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------------------- Super tapety na pulpit: http://reklama.interia.pl/promocja/promocja6.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 18:30:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M8Tpl12434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:29:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin2.email.bigpond.com (juicer14.bigpond.com [139.134.6.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5M8Tjt12408 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.54]) by mailin2.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GFBP3W00.JC1 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:33:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-251.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.251]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Dodgy-MailRouter V2.9c 11/5646418); 22 Jun 2001 18:28:04 Message-ID: <002f01c0faf4$bd17ed40$fbd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] one appeal from Zone 5 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:23:42 +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 John Probst wrote: >David Kent wrote: >>John Mac Gregor wrote: >>>Things were quiet in Caracas, only one appeal: >>> >>>N/S vul, North dealer >>> >>>N E S W >>>3S 4H 4S X(h) >>>P 5H all pass >>> >>>The 'h' was longer than a minute and less than two. >>> >>>East held: s x h AKQTxxxx d xx c Kx >>> >>>The TD ruled that East took advantage of the UI and rolled it >>>back to 4S X. The AC upheld the decision & returned the deposit. >> >>At this level of competition, hi-level doubles tend to show >>transferrable values as opposed to a trump stack. The East >>hand is virtually entirely offensive. If West has Jxx xx Axxx Axxx, >>both 4S and 5H may well make. With the same hand, if West >>has the club Q, slam is stiff and 4S still probably makes. >> >Well, I seem to be outvoted here. Thanks for the comments Just to even up the voting a bit, I agree with the original decision, but I wouldn't have considered retaining the deposit as John did. The point about transferable values is only true if that's the way E/W tend to play. I think this could be discovered by asking E/W. In Zone 2 or Zone 6, where the Kokish influence is very high, I would expect a lot of top pairs' hi-level doubles to show transferable values, but in Zone 5 I would tend to expect the opposite. Another point (which Rich Colker is fond of) is whether the hesitation is caused by an unexpected action by RHO, e.g. a preempt. In this case, that hasn't happened; the 4S bid over 4H is exactly what one expects, so the hesitation fully transmits UI that the doubler probably has transferable rather than penalty values. I think Pass is a LA. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 19:10:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M99au13190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:09:36 +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 f5M99Rt13182 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5M97lM22528 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:07:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? 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: > >> East (a keen tournament player but a non-expert) holds: > >> S. K83 H. A952 D. Void C. 985432 > >> > >> West North East South > >> Pass Pass > >> 1C Dbl 1H Pass > >> 1S 2D 5C 5D > >> Pass(H) Pass 6C Pass > >> Pass Dbl. > > > >I have consulted my non-expert. She didn't particularly like 5C but > wasn't >sure of a good forcing alternative. When asked her final > choice it was >"bid six", in about a microsecond. She did admit to > briefly considering >passing because "partner might not forgive her", > she didn't even consider >double. Based on my sample of one pass is > not an LA (at least by UK >standards). > > I think this would be a more convincing argument if the sample > included a player who was happy with 5C. Of course if she wanted to > make a forcing alternative then she would bid 6C later. 5C was her choice after being told that 4C was non-forcing but she did say it might lead to missing slam. She is fairly timid about slam bidding and unaware of the concept of forcing passes so I figured if she would choose six so would an overwhelming majority of her peers (or those slightly more experienced). I suspect that the actual 5C bidder was also aware that 5C was flawed (his reasons for bidding it would help me make a judgement). I too would have liked a wider sample but she is the only one I had available:-) 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 Jun 22 19:10:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5M99eq13191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:09:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5M99Rt13183 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:09:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5M97nC22563 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:07:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:07 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? 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: > >two good players, not knowing eachother, would probably both consider > >the pass as forcing > > I do not disagree with that, even though I do not play the pass as > forcing myself. But we are told in the current scenario that the player > was a non-expert: we were not told he was a "good player". In my view, > the only time a non-expert takes a pass as forcing is when there was a > previous FG call. So I would say that 'two non-expert players, not > knowing each other, would very probably both consider the pass as non- > forcing'. I think the key issue here is what is "non-expert". Initially I selected a near novice as a comparator. However, I was a regional master before I was 21 and since then have improved considerably playing high-stakes rubber yet I would classify myself "reasonable/good" rather than "expert". I do know many players I consider less good by whom this pass would be considered forcing without blinking. FWIW: Expert (IMO) = a good player who has almost entirely eliminated careless errors from their game. Good = a player who is familiar with, and can execute, all the "clever" trick-generating manoeuvres in declaration and defence. I understand that on OKB an expert is someone who has heard about squeezes so this is obviously something of a minefield. 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 Jun 22 21:46:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MBiDx29216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:44:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5MBi6t29212 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:44:07 +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 NAA21292; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:42:11 +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 NAA23322; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:42:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010622134649.00882b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:46:49 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks In-Reply-To: <3B32194A.30004@interia.pl> References: <3.0.6.32.20010621124350.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:56 21/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Certainly Os shoud get A- for making the board unplayable rather than A. >What about the NOs? I am open to an argument if they should get A+, A or A- >but at present my view is that they should get A+ as you have no legal >obligation >to remember what cards have been played so far. AG : what about L74B1 ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 21:52:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MBpBN29254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:51:11 +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 f5MBp4t29225 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:51:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA27067; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:45:44 +0200 (MEST) 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 NAA28136; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:49:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010622135340.00885760@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:53:40 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , David Stevenson From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Politicians, was : False alert Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: References: <$vKBb4EmbVM7EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200106151923.MAA18117@mailhub.irvine.com> <001a01c0f5f5$4f208da0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <$vKBb4EmbVM7EwBM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:40 21/06/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >> Yes, why not? Humans do not lie routinely, do they? > >Are you saying that politicians are not human? :-) AG : he is. Try this one : Politicians are often caught lying True ? True. Cast iron sinks. True ? True. Politicians are often caught lying 'n cast iron sinks. True ? Er ... (you can also try the Aussie version) A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 21:59:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MBwEw01769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:58:14 +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 f5MBw5t01721 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:58:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 1E9D22A44AA; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:56:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id E3AEA2A438F for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:56:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 12024 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2001 11:56:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 22 Jun 2001 11:56:26 -0000 Message-ID: <3B3331E3.8050408@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:54:11 +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] Playing with quitted tricks References: <3.0.6.32.20010621124350.00881100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010622134649.00882b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: d610cacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 17:56 21/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> Certainly Os shoud get A- for making the board unplayable rather than A. >> What about the NOs? I am open to an argument if they should get A+, A or A- >> but at present my view is that they should get A+ as you have no legal >> obligation >> to remember what cards have been played so far. > > > AG : what about L74B1 ? > I am convinced that this law refers to looking at ceiling, talking to kibitzers, failing to realize that it is your turn to bid or play, passing boards to the wrong tables, failing to listen to TD's announcements etc. If, however, you do you follow suit, you make legal bids, legal plays at yout turn etc.) then I firmly believe you are not subject to penalty under L74B1. Otherwise you would get a PP every time you let through the opponents' contract because of the failure to count out the hand. Not remembering what cards have been play simply costs you points from the bad results so why should you be punished again? It is solely the declarer who caused the whole mess; not the defenders. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------------------- Super tapety na pulpit: http://reklama.interia.pl/promocja/promocja6.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jun 22 22:15:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MCE6E04586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 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 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 f5MCE0t04582 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:14:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA25353; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:12:06 +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 OAA14414; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:12:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010622141646.008822c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:16:46 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] transfer argument Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Yesterday, in our traditional club duplicate, there happened a fairly easy case, but it had interesting by-aspects. Before I show you the case, I'd wish to thank you for discussing, in a previous thread, the possibility of passing the sequence 2D pass 2S pass with a weak 2 in hearts. I tried this yesterday on a classical example (AQJ9xx and out), and it earned us a top. Well, they found out the truth (after my pass, LHO was able to make a penalty double), but they didn't agree on the strength shown by subsequent actions ... This is the case, which was put before the AC (a unique occurrence in a Belgian club duplicate) in due form : West / none KQx Qx Kxx AQJxx xx Jxx K9xxx AJx x Q109xxx K9xxx x A10xxx 10xx AJx 10x IOTTMCO, N/S are cold for 4S. The bidding : W N E S pass 1NT 2Da p 2H p p X p p p East's 2D was alerted as showing the majors. Based on EW's CC ersatz, the TD setermined the explanation was correct. He then let the score stand. Note East's ethic behavior, letting partner play 2H in a possible 33 fit. As it was, the fit quality was better than that, and 2HX made with an overtrick. The AC upheld the decision. Questions : 1) Could one demand from East to signal her error before the lead ? If NS had known, they could have beaten 2H. Not that it would have earned them a good score. It is widely believed that she should, but it didn't find any Law to this effect. 2) One of the committee members developed the following argument : say the EW hands are : x Jxxx Kxx AJxxx xxxx Q10x Kxxxx x Now EW's bidding is perfectly correct, 4S is still making, and 2H is going 2 down at best, for a good EW score. Thus, even had there been UI, NS can't get an adjusted score (subsequent damage from their own poor bidding). Is that true ? Thank you for your help. 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 Jun 22 23:06:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MD37811739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:03:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5MD31t11707 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:03:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id k.9b.16d561d5 (3926); Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:58:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <9b.16d561d5.28649ae4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:58:12 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks To: cibor@interia.pl, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9b.16d561d5.28649ae4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_9b.16d561d5.28649ae4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Konrad for keeping the Laws within their context. You are a shining light when it comes to this, as opposed to so many who like to play word games. Kojak --part1_9b.16d561d5.28649ae4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thank you Konrad for keeping the Laws within their context.  You are a
shining light when it comes to this, as opposed to so many who like to play
word games.

Kojak --part1_9b.16d561d5.28649ae4_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 Jun 22 23:40:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MDeKi24952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:40:20 +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 f5MDeDt24919 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:40:13 +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 f5MDcX593853 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010622092636.00ab8260@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, 22 Jun 2001 09:39:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] transfer argument In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010622141646.008822c0@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 08:16 AM 6/22/01, alain wrote: >West / none > > KQx > Qx > Kxx > AQJxx > > xx Jxx > K9xxx AJx > x Q109xxx > K9xxx x > > A10xxx > 10xx > AJx > 10x > >IOTTMCO, N/S are cold for 4S. > >The bidding : > > W N E S > > pass 1NT 2Da p > 2H p p X > p p p > >East's 2D was alerted as showing the majors. >Based on EW's CC ersatz, the TD setermined the explanation was correct. >He then let the score stand. >Note East's ethic behavior, letting partner play 2H in a possible 33 fit. >As it was, the fit quality was better than that, and 2HX made with an >overtrick. >The AC upheld the decision. > >Questions : > >1) Could one demand from East to signal her error before the lead ? If NS >had known, they could have beaten 2H. Not that it would have earned them a >good score. It is widely believed that she should, but it didn't find any >Law to this effect. Under the ACBL's interpretation of the law, not only is East not required to call the opponents' attention to her error, but it would be a violation of correct procedure to do so. Other interpretations may hold in other jurisdictions, but the ACBL's seems correct to me. In theory, L75 entitles the opponents to full disclosure of the partnership's agreements, but there is nothing in the law that entitles them to any information about the cards actually held. In practice, it would seem like a very bad idea to have two different sets of rules apply when a player takes the same action with the same cards, depending on whether it was an unintended error or a deliberate psych. >2) One of the committee members developed the following argument : say the >EW hands are : > > x Jxxx > Kxx AJxxx > xxxx Q10x > Kxxxx x > >Now EW's bidding is perfectly correct, 4S is still making, and 2H is going >2 down at best, for a good EW score. >Thus, even had there been UI, NS can't get an adjusted score (subsequent >damage from their own poor bidding). > >Is that true ? It is so far from true that it is ludicrous. N-S may have been damaged by their own poor judgment, but nothing they did remotely resembles an "egregious error" or a "wild, gambling or irrational action". 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 Jun 23 00:10:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ME9W605304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:09:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5ME9Pt05270 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:09:25 +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 f5ME7gv06622; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:07:44 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5ME7gC19173; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:07:42 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:07:42 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA13851; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:07:41 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA04431; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:07:40 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:07:40 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200106221407.PAA04431@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: [BLML] transfer argument X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:39:22 -0400 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > From: Eric Landau > Subject: Re: [BLML] transfer argument > > > >1) Could one demand from East to signal her error before the lead ? If NS > >had known, they could have beaten 2H. Not that it would have earned them a > >good score. It is widely believed that she should, but it didn't find any > >Law to this effect. > > Under the ACBL's interpretation of the law, not only is East not > required to call the opponents' attention to her error, but it would be > a violation of correct procedure to do so. Other interpretations may > hold in other jurisdictions, but the ACBL's seems correct to me. In > theory, L75 entitles the opponents to full disclosure of the > partnership's agreements, but there is nothing in the law that entitles > them to any information about the cards actually held. In practice, it > would seem like a very bad idea to have two different sets of rules > apply when a player takes the same action with the same cards, > depending on whether it was an unintended error or a deliberate psych. I read Grattan recently on this subject in some official capacity. He (or the body he was speaking for) said that a player should not correct partner's explanation only when the player was completely sure that the player was wrong and partner's explanation was right. If there was any doubt that the TD would rule mistaken explanation rather than misbid, then the player should correct; as declarer or dummy, at the end of the auction "I intended 2D as ..., I don't know whether partner's explanation or my intention is the partnership agreement." In this case, only if "knew" both convention cards said "2D=majors" then he should say nothing. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 23 05:01:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MJ0Uo16425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 05:00:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5MJ0Lt16384 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 05:00:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA12941 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA29550 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:58:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106221858.OAA29550@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Playing with quitted tricks Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > While other responses by blmlers to this problem are agreeing that > Av+/Av- should be awarded under L12A2, I disagree. > > IMHO, the relevant Law is L14B3, and declarer has committed multiple > revokes. This could possibly be along the right track, but the details don't seem correct. Declarer has played no card at all to the last six (or seven?) tricks, so I don't see how revokes are possible (although the penalty may apply -- see below). Also, declarer's hand was never deficient, so L14B3 doesn't apply. She had all the cards she was entitled to have; she just failed to play any of them to the last several tricks. If you are determined to reach a score, the correct law is 67B1. I think the application would be to reexamine all the defective tricks, removing the "card" declarer had appeared to play, and see who then correctly owns each trick. Leads out of turn can be considered condoned, I suppose, although I'm not sure what you do when declarer apparently led. Then there would be zero to four one-trick penalties (no more than one in each suit), and I suppose you also have to look at L64C (although that last is not entirely clear). I am not sure this can be made to work, but perhaps it can. Personally, I like avg+/avg-. If offender has already butchered the hand (as in the Kantar case), apply an adjustment under L72B1 instead. A villain could have known he would benefit from making the hand unplayable. (Isn't that a traditional coffeehouse coup?) What I'd really like is an assigned adjusted score starting from the last legal play, but I don't see how the laws let us get there if 72B1 doesn't apply. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 23 06:14:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MKEUk29348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 06:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5MKELt29338 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 06:14:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4d0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.160]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08291; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002d01c0fb58$095e6950$a011f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:15:03 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" > I understand that on OKB an expert is someone who has heard about squeezes > so this is obviously something of a minefield. And on most of the other online sites an expert is someone who once scratched in a real game and/or once bid and made an honest-to-goodness slam! I rather prefer your definitions, which though they become your modesty, appear to be useful. Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 23 08:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5MMhTk14367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:43:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5MMhLt14336 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15DZcS-0005MJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:41:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:11:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] transfer argument References: <3.0.6.32.20010622141646.008822c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010622141646.008822c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >Questions : > >1) Could one demand from East to signal her error before the lead ? If NS >had known, they could have beaten 2H. Not that it would have earned them a >good score. It is widely believed that she should, but it didn't find any >Law to this effect. Why would she tell them she has made a mistake? If she accidentally played the wrong card, would you expect her to say to the table "sorry, I did not mean to play the C3"? Mistakes are part of the game, and occasionally they happen to gain the person making the mistake. This probably happens about 500 times a night in an average 12-table club, assuming that about 3000 mistakes are made. >2) One of the committee members developed the following argument : say the >EW hands are : > > x Jxxx > Kxx AJxxx > xxxx Q10x > Kxxxx x > >Now EW's bidding is perfectly correct, 4S is still making, and 2H is going >2 down at best, for a good EW score. >Thus, even had there been UI, NS can't get an adjusted score (subsequent >damage from their own poor bidding). Poor bidding is not sufficient to deny redress. -- 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 Jun 23 16:18:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5N6HaR26700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:17:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5N6HUt26693 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:17:30 +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, 22 Jun 2001 23:11:34 -0700 Message-ID: <001101c0fbab$e5472bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001201c0f7af$4f216520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B2D8EEC.CFE4ECC5@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:10:37 -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: "John R. Mayne" > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > Deciding logical alternatives depending on the "class of player" is pure > > voodoo. Better to pretend we know nothing about East, as is often true for > > a TD. Or should TDs give tests before ruling? Or ask about masterpoints? > > I don't agree. I do think that some committees make strange rulings > based on this, and I think you must take some care to determine the > class before determining logical alternatives. Even if there were a > > That said, I think this factor seldom makes a difference. > > > > > East's uncorroborated testimony is irrelevant. > > Why? Why is it irrelevant? I think committees would do a much better job > if they learned to listen to everyone. Directors too, for that matter. > > In this case, E's testimony is crucial. Is pass forcing? A good > committee will talk about rules, how they apply to different hands, what > calls they would make on similar auctions, to flesh out whether E is > credible or not. That is corroboration. I said *uncorroborated* testimony is irrelevant. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 23 18:02:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5N81nT29680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:01:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5N81gt29641 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:01:42 +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 ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:55:47 -0700 Message-ID: <006e01c0fbba$7459b9a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C0F771.2A8B20E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001201c0f7af$4f216520$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B2D8EEC.CFE4ECC5@mindspring.com> <001101c0fbab$e5472bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:55:59 -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 (written in haste, unfinished, and accidentally sent, please ignore)- Marv From: "Marvin L. French" > From: "John R. Mayne" > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Deciding logical alternatives depending on the "class of player" is > pure > > > voodoo. Better to pretend we know nothing about East, as is often true > for > > > a TD. Or should TDs give tests before ruling? Or ask about > masterpoints? > > > > I don't agree. I do think that some committees make strange rulings > > based on this, and I think you must take some care to determine the > > class before determining logical alternatives. > > Even if there were a > > > > That said, I think this factor seldom makes a difference. > > > > > > > > East's uncorroborated testimony is irrelevant. > > > > Why? Why is it irrelevant? I think committees would do a much better job > > if they learned to listen to everyone. Directors too, for that matter. > > > > In this case, E's testimony is crucial. Is pass forcing? A good > > committee will talk about rules, how they apply to different hands, what > > calls they would make on similar auctions, to flesh out whether E is > > credible or not. > > That is corroboration. I said *uncorroborated* testimony is irrelevant. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, California > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 24 05:03:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5NJ0Nu17033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 05:00:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5NJ0It17029 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 05:00:18 +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 ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:54:20 -0700 Message-ID: <003301c0fc16$73c75fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <3.0.6.32.20010618133435.0080e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:56:00 -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: "alain gottcheiner" > I don't see why I'd rule there was an infraction (well, the very slow pass is > a minor irregularity, but shouldn't be sanctioned). > Slow pass an irregularity? Only if it a deliberate action committed to affect partner's actions (e.g., to keep an ethical partner from acting). Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 24 06:21:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5NKKVh20029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 06:20:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5NKKQt20000 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 06:20:26 +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 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:14:28 -0700 Message-ID: <003601c0fc21$a5be3400$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200106181357.JAA24930@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logical Alternative for non-experts? Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:18:15 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" < > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Given that the hesitation demonstrably suggests that East take some > > action, you have to decide whether non-action (pass) is an LA. I don't > > think it is, with the black suit fits and diamond void. But does the > > hesitation suggest one specific action over another? I don't see that it > > does. That leaves East free to do anything he wants. Result stands. > > Two points to make: > > 1. The comparison for "suggested over another" is of the action taken > (6C) with each LA. Thus if pass is a LA, the question is whether the > hesitation suggests 6C over pass. Clearly it does. The question is whether the hesitation suggests 6C "over another" LA, and I don't see that it does. It could suggest that 5S, another LA, would be playable, for instance. Just because 6C is a better LA than 5S doesn't mean that West's hesitation provides that information. > Whether the > hesitation also suggests other actions over pass isn't relevant. Can't agree with that. > > 2. For purposes of determining LA's, East's peers are the players who > chose to bid 5C on the previous round. There were many exploratory > moves available below game, and the choice of 5C suggests lack of > ambition for slam unless partner has significant extras. But I'd also > like to know about West's opening bid style before coming to a final > conclusion about whether pass (or even double) was a LA or not. > We have to go by the information given, as complete information is seldom available on BlML. "Based on the information provided" has to be understood, or we won't be able to give opinions on the majority of cases presented. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 24 07:04:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5NL4Hd04355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 07:04:17 +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-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 f5NL46t04351 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 07:04:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15DuXs-000Gix-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:02:24 +0000 Message-ID: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:59:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk First scenario: Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? Second scenario: Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention illegally drawn? The first one was a problem for a senior EBU TD: the second one was his idea as a further problem. -- 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 Jun 24 14:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5O4BHD20747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:11:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5O4BAt20711 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:11:11 +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 f5O46uW01105; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:06:57 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 00:08:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Cc: David Stevenson Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >First scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so >he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, >it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? Interesting question. Law 61B says Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks - see Law 66C). Dummy may ask declarer (but see Law 43B2(b)). Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the zonal organization so authorizes, not one another. This defender didn't ask anyone anything. I suppose one could argue that it's an extraneous remark in the sense of Law 73B1. That would make it attention illegally drawn. Based on previous posts here, though, what a TD should do about it would seem to depend on the venue. :-) >Second scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so >he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having >none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention >illegally drawn? No. Law61B specifically allows a defender to ask that question of declarer. That partner can hear it is just tough. However, I suppose one could argue that active ethics require the partner not to say anything, since he might not have discovered the revoke in time had his partner not asked. 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/AwUBOzVn/b2UW3au93vOEQJjHgCdHRxXMT8orWISdrmvhpQOFrPqcHwAoJdc 8Pr0YNiZm6VgXwwTwnZ5Y1+6 =a77+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 24 22:31:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5OCSpO23633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:28:51 +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 f5OCSdt23570 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:28:44 +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 15E8zW-0003SI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:27:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:16:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? References: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@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 <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes > > >First scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so >he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, >it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? > Yes > >Second scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so >he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having >none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention >illegally drawn? > Yes > > The first one was a problem for a senior EBU TD: the second one was >his idea as a further problem. > It's like waiting a bit to see if partner notices he's revoked. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jun 24 23:46:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ODiHJ16845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:44:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5ODi7t16798 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:44:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-018.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.210]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA22627 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:42:19 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:42:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0FCBB.F0B2AFA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 14:42:48 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS asked: First scenario: Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? Second scenario: Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention illegally drawn? Yes to both questions. Both feel like they are attempts to communicate with partner through loopholes. 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 Jun 25 00:20:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5OEIR726878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:18:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5OEIIt26868 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:18:19 +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 KAA17001 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:16:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA29453; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200106241416.KAA29453@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >DWS asked: > > >First scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so >he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, >it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? > >Second scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so >he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having >none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention >illegally drawn? > > Yes to both. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 02:45:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5OGhiW00173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 02:43:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from m1.bezeqint.net (m1.bezeqint.net [192.115.106.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5OGhbt00169 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 02:43:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il (bzq-132-154.pop.bezeqint.net [212.179.132.154]) by m1.bezeqint.net (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ADE62115; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:41:48 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:41:13 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,hebrew MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? References: <200106241416.KAA29453@freenet10.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Everyone agrees the information is illegally obtained. Is the penalty for a revoke used? Is any penalty invoked? zvika Israel "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > > >DWS asked: > > > > > >First scenario: > > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the > >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so > >he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, > >it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? > > > >Second scenario: > > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the > >suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so > >he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having > >none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention > >illegally drawn? > > > > > Yes to both. > Tony (aka ac342) > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 04:38:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5OIb2I16007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:37:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5OIaut15972 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 04:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5OBl4M04609 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:47:04 GMT Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:47:04 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: David J Grabiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? In-Reply-To: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > First scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the > suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so > he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, > it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? Yes, because this is an extraneous comment. > > Second scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the > suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so > he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having > none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention > illegally drawn? This is somewhat harder. Defender does have tghe right to ask declarer about revokes; however, if he does not ask consistently, this creates unauthorized information. If this defender always asked declarer about revokes (does anyone do this?) and his partner discarded before the questioner would normally have asked, then there was no information passed. However, if this defender rarely asked declarer, then he transmitted the UI that he suspected declarer had one more card, and drawing attention to the revoke through UI is illegal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 08:45:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5OMh3I02116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:43:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5OMgwt02112 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:42:58 +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 IAA11670 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:47:17 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:32:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:38:10 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 25/06/2001 08:36:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Australia is located where the zonal option of L61B applies, so it is normally perfectly proper here for one defender to ask another, *No doohickeys, partner?* However, when I am a defender, I do not ask this question when partner shows out in spades, clubs or diamonds, but only when pard is apparently void in hearts. Is this pattern of questioning improper? Best wishes Richard PS The reason I do this is because I love to enquire, *Heartless, partner? * -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 09:34:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ONWXi12472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:32:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f5ONWQt12432 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:32:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15EJKW-0008rV-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:30:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:14:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? References: <200106241416.KAA29453@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Zvi Shilon writes >Everyone agrees the information is illegally obtained. Is the penalty for a >revoke used? Is any penalty invoked? I am afraid the penalty for this offence is the most vicious one in the whole Law book [*]. L63B says: 'When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established.' So if there actually is a revoke, the legal card is substituted, leaving a major penalty card, and the revoke penalty is applied. Because of the major penalty card this can often cost three tricks. * slight exaggeration: I realise expulsion is worse! -- 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 Jun 25 10:48:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5P0k3b08384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:46:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5P0jvt08350 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15EKTw-000Prl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:44:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 01:41:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: [BLML] Vet MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just to let you know that our slave David is going to that big vet place they call a hospital. I wonder if they will take his temperature in the normal vet way? Breeoowwww! He goes there on Monday for a test, and expects to be out on Wednesday. I wonder who will feed us when we are hungry if our other slave Liz is at work? Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 14:16:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5P4Eks09843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:14:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5P4Eet09813 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:14:41 +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 f5P4BWW17859 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200106241416.KAA29453@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:26:22 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:14 PM +0100 6/24/01, David Stevenson wrote: > I am afraid the penalty for this offence is the most vicious one in >the whole Law book [*]. L63B says: > >'When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute >a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke >had been established.' > > So if there actually is a revoke, the legal card is substituted, >leaving a major penalty card, and the revoke penalty is applied. >Because of the major penalty card this can often cost three tricks. Um. Which case are we talking about here? In the first case, defender didn't ask a question, he made a comment. 61B talks about asking questions. No question, no violation of 61B. No violation of 61B, no draconian penalty under 63B. Or so it seems to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOza6Ur2UW3au93vOEQKSWgCfaaGOTQ0XEUgqAG30U46DBzSOm9AAn0Zt ipKrGF5uKxtF/RGAySav+vu9 =1JJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 14:16:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5P4Edi09805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:14:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5P4EXt09772 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:14:33 +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 f5P3R4W10134 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> References: <200106241416.KAA29453@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:19:42 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:41 PM +0200 6/24/01, Zvi Shilon wrote: >Everyone agrees the information is illegally obtained. I didn't. 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/AwUBOza6Sb2UW3au93vOEQL6LgCfUyXMD9WL1lDkLmV6wWWgxhqGqLgAoKzV aLye+aedCRVeA3USH/DiTocp =GmUG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 19:14:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5P9B6n29503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:11:06 +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 f5P9B0t29497 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5P99FO19933 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:09:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:09 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? 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: <4s8w7tA7ZHN7EwoY@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > First scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the > suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so > he knows one is missing. 'Well, someone has got another one!' 'Oh yes, > it's me says his partner.' Is that attention illegally drawn? > Second scenario: > Defender on lead. Leads a heart. He can account for 12 cards in the > suit including dummy. Neither his partner nor declarer follow suit, so > he knows one is missing. Defender specifically says to declarer 'having > none'; declarer says no, but partner owns up. Is that attention > illegally drawn? Yes to both is a possible answer. But somehow this feels like a bad law. The defender is in the, to me, invidious position of knowing that when he next leads it will almost certainly create an irregularity* but he has no way to prevent it without risking an even worse score for his side. *Many people don't like to win boards just because an opponent makes a meaningless revoke - it would be nice to cater to their feelings too. One could say that in scenario two (possibly scenario one as well) that since neither case involved an illegal question it is not appropriate to adjust on the basis of "attention illegally drawn". Rather the adjustment should be based on "could have known" if opponents turn out to be damaged. Although since I wouldn't consider the revoke penalty they didn't get part of their equity I am not sure how damage would arise (perhaps in addition to the MPC we should deem it an LA for defender to continue on the assumption that the revoke was declarer's). I think perhaps USA and rubber bridge have this one right after all and we should find a different way of dealing with those who abuse the right to ask. Tim West-Meads David, I hope all goes well at the vet. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 20:31:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PATbS23513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5PATUt23473 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:29:31 +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 f5PARjv24248; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:27:46 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5PARjZ07007; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:27:45 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:27:45 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA01540; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:27:44 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA18809; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:27:43 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:27:43 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200106251027.LAA18809@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bit of "me too" post. > > I think perhaps USA and rubber bridge have this one right after all and Not sure about this. > we should find a different way of dealing with those who abuse the right to > ask. Definitely agree with this. > Tim West-Meads > David, I hope all goes well at the vet. > Definitely agree with this. As I understand it, the abuse of defending asking partner if they had revoked was that it meant "partner, declarer has got more in this suit than I expected". Now this is only a problem when partner had run out of the suit. If partner had revoked, then the extraneous information about declarer's [how can I phrase this delicately] surprising extra length is irrelevant (being based on the false premise that parner had none). But if defenders ask and there is no revoke then there is no penalty; if defenders ask and there is a revoke then there is no problem but there is a (severe: "3 trick", DWS) penalty. I think defenders should be able to ask (especially if two players show out on a trick) but if there is no revoke it should be treated as UI; if there is a revoke it should be corrected with no L63B penalty. Alternatively, asking could be disallowed but subject to a procedural penalty (irrespective of whether there had been a revoke or not). Again there would be UI but no L63B penalty. SO regulations could make the PP a mandatory fine. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 21:17:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PBFfN10139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:15:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5PBFYt10102 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:15:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15EUJv-0004No-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:14:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:00:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? 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 Tim West-meads writes >*Many people don't like to win boards just because an opponent makes a >meaningless revoke - it would be nice to cater to their feelings too. Such players could ask the Director to waive the penalty. >One could say that in scenario two (possibly scenario one as well) that >since neither case involved an illegal question it is not appropriate to >adjust on the basis of "attention illegally drawn". Rather the adjustment >should be based on "could have known" if opponents turn out to be damaged. > Although since I wouldn't consider the revoke penalty they didn't get >part of their equity I am not sure how damage would arise (perhaps in >addition to the MPC we should deem it an LA for defender to continue on >the assumption that the revoke was declarer's). > >I think perhaps USA and rubber bridge have this one right after all and we >should find a different way of dealing with those who abuse the right to >ask. If something works normally but leads to very occasional problems that does not make it wrong. Many of our discussions concern such matters. >David, I hope all goes well at the vet. So do I! Thanks. I am retaliating by taking Quango and Nanki Poo to their vet about an hour before I set off for hospital. -- 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 Jun 25 21:17:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PBFm910178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:15:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f5PBFet10135 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:15:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15EUJv-0004Nn-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:14:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:57:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? References: <200106241416.KAA29453@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3B362638.C04369B0@isdn.net.il> 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 Ed Reppert writes >At 10:14 PM +0100 6/24/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> I am afraid the penalty for this offence is the most vicious one in >>the whole Law book [*]. L63B says: >> >>'When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute >>a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke >>had been established.' >> >> So if there actually is a revoke, the legal card is substituted, >>leaving a major penalty card, and the revoke penalty is applied. >>Because of the major penalty card this can often cost three tricks. > >Um. Which case are we talking about here? In the first case, defender >didn't ask a question, he made a comment. 61B talks about asking >questions. No question, no violation of 61B. No violation of 61B, no >draconian penalty under 63B. Or so it seems to me. I suppose it is a question of interpretation. If you effectively ask your partner a question, even if you cleverly avoid the actual words of a question, then I believe you should treat it as a question. We have case law to that effect in England. Put it another way: a player says "No hearts, partner?" and loses three tricks. Another player who knows the Laws does something else [eg, refuses to play a card until partner wakes up]. Do you want the second person to escape punishment-free? The English view is basically that a question need not be explicit. -- 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 Jun 25 22:29:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PCRbU05398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:27:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5PCRPt05324 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id E172F2A4E24; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:24:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id D1F4F2A4E24 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:24:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 31554 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2001 12:24:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 25 Jun 2001 12:24:54 -0000 Message-ID: <3B372CFC.9060903@interia.pl> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:22:20 +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: [BLML] From rgb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: fb192acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was allowed by Hank Youngerman to poste this message on our list. So here it is: +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ I've always wondered if "Active Ethics" should have required us to take this hand to committee. In the qualifying of the 1998 Life Master Pairs, playing with a new partner and a good friend as my LHO, the auction went: 1N by me 2C by LHO 2D by partner, aleted as a transfer to hearts Pass 2H by me All pass Down 300 Partner, of course, forgot that we were playing transfers over interference. My RHO had failed to alert 2C as Cappaletti, showing an unspecified one-suiter. Partner unfortunately had something like 3 hearts and 5 or 6 diamonds, and so was constrained from converting to diamonds. My RHO's failure to alert did not really contribute to our bad result, it was our own doing. Since there had been an infraction, however, (two actually) we called the director. Max Hardy came to the table. After consultation with Henry Cukoff and Brian Moran, Max returned and ruled average for each side. Well, you don't get much stronger a directing group than those three, and Max is an expert-level player and Brian (may he rest in peace) was a fine player also. But it really didn't seem right. We earned our bottom. Whether the opponents are entitled to their top is possibly another matter. Should we have appealed, or at least urged the directors to give us back our bottom? Or is this just being too cute? +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------------------- Super tapety na pulpit: http://reklama.interia.pl/promocja/promocja6.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jun 25 22:40:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PCcZY09190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:38:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5PCcRt09145 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:38:29 +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 15EVbf-000P9r-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:36:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:12:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? References: <200106251027.LAA18809@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200106251027.LAA18809@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200106251027.LAA18809@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Bit of "me too" post. >> >> I think perhaps USA and rubber bridge have this one right after all and > >Not sure about this. > >> we should find a different way of dealing with those who abuse the right to >> ask. > >Definitely agree with this. > >> Tim West-Meads >> David, I hope all goes well at the vet. >> >Definitely agree with this. > > > >As I understand it, the abuse of defending asking partner if they had revoked >was that it meant "partner, declarer has got more in this suit than I expected". > >Now this is only a problem when partner had run out of the suit. > >If partner had revoked, then the extraneous information about declarer's >[how can I phrase this delicately] surprising extra length is irrelevant >(being based on the false premise that parner had none). > >But if defenders ask and there is no revoke then there is no penalty; >if defenders ask and there is a revoke then there is no problem but >there is a (severe: "3 trick", DWS) penalty. > >I think defenders should be able to ask (especially if two players show out >on a trick) but if there is no revoke it should be treated as UI; if there >is a revoke it should be corrected with no L63B penalty. > >Alternatively, asking could be disallowed but subject to a procedural penalty >(irrespective of whether there had been a revoke or not). Again there would >be UI but no L63B penalty. SO regulations could make the PP a mandatory fine. > > > My own view of this is that probably the USA has it right. "Having none", whilst it occasionally *does* create UI, is nonetheless fairly harmless, whereas the 3 trick penalty, seldom indeed that it happens (I've only ever had it twice) is completely invidious. Certainly the Law needs changing. My own view is that where the zonal organisation allows the question things stay as they are, and where they don't then the card is *not* changed. ie the establishment of the revoke means that the card can't be changed. In all other situations the "establishment" and the not-changing are the same thing, and should remain so in this case. john >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 26 03:20:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PHIXX02919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:18:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5PHIRt02915 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 03:18:28 +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 TAA02134; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:13:12 +0200 (MEST) 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 TAA06955; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:16:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010625192111.0088b9e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:21:11 +0200 To: Konrad Ciborowski , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] From rgb In-Reply-To: <3B372CFC.9060903@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:22 25/06/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Since there had been an infraction, however, (two actually) we called >the director. Max Hardy came to the table. After consultation with >Henry Cukoff and Brian Moran, Max returned and ruled average for each >side. > >Well, you don't get much stronger a directing group than those three, >and Max is an expert-level player and Brian (may he rest in peace) was >a fine player also. But it really didn't seem right. We earned our >bottom. Whether the opponents are entitled to their top is possibly >another matter. AG : when the opponents err, you are entitled to a good score. Else, how would good players win and others lose ?? They should have got their top, minus a small PP for not alerting. The case could have been more serious behind screens. Suppose you play 'system on' over an artificial 2C, but natural over a natural 2C (which is sensible) ; upon recieving discordant information, you would have played different defenses and probably messed it up. In this case, their infraction would have caused your misunderstanding, and you would get an adjusted score. >Should we have appealed, or at least urged the directors to give us >back our bottom? Or is this just being too cute? AG : both pairs should have appealed, because a deal that produced a result may never result in an artificial adjusted score, like 60/40 or 50/50. L12C1-C2 states this clearly. For your question, in general, I'd answer no, but you could have told your opponents they should appeal (only if you are fairly sure ; imagine they lose their deposit !). Best regards, Alain. > >+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > >---------------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------------------- >Super tapety na pulpit: http://reklama.interia.pl/promocja/promocja6.html > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 26 04:37:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PIZsV20693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 04:35:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe32.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5PIZmt20657 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 04:35:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:33:59 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.240] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200106251027.LAA18809@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:45:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jun 2001 18:33:59.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[669732B0:01C0FDA5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? | In article <200106251027.LAA18809@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker | writes | >Bit of "me too" post. | >> | >> I think perhaps USA and rubber bridge have this one right after all and | > | >Not sure about this. | > | >> we should find a different way of dealing with those who abuse the right to | >> ask. | > | >Definitely agree with this. | > | >> Tim West-Meads | >> David, I hope all goes well at the vet. | >> | >Definitely agree with this. > | > | > | >As I understand it, the abuse of defending asking partner if they had revoked | >was that it meant "partner, declarer has got more in this suit than I expected". | > | >Now this is only a problem when partner had run out of the suit. | > | >If partner had revoked, then the extraneous information about declarer's | >[how can I phrase this delicately] surprising extra length is irrelevant | >(being based on the false premise that parner had none). | > | >But if defenders ask and there is no revoke then there is no penalty; | >if defenders ask and there is a revoke then there is no problem but | >there is a (severe: "3 trick", DWS) penalty. | > | >I think defenders should be able to ask (especially if two players show out | >on a trick) but if there is no revoke it should be treated as UI; if there | >is a revoke it should be corrected with no L63B penalty. | > | >Alternatively, asking could be disallowed but subject to a procedural penalty | >(irrespective of whether there had been a revoke or not). Again there would | >be UI but no L63B penalty. SO regulations could make the PP a mandatory fine. | > | > | > | My own view of this is that probably the USA has it right. "Having | none", whilst it occasionally *does* create UI, is nonetheless | fairly harmless, whereas the 3 trick penalty, seldom indeed | that it happens (I've only ever had it twice) is completely | invidious. Certainly the Law needs changing. My own view | is that where the zonal organisation allows the question things | stay as they are, and where they don't then the card is *not* |changed. ie the establishment of the revoke means that the | card can't be changed. In all other situations the "establishment" | and the not-changing are the same thing, and should remain | so in this case. | john While the law on the matter is flawed, the ACBL approach is severely flawed and to follow that lead probably would not be wise. In fact for about a year I have been circumspect about the legitimacy of permitting the asking about a revoke. If I had my druthers I think it ought not be permitted at all except that an opponent should be allowed to enforce a PC on a revoker. And as to that, such a right ought to have a narrow window. But, to cover that contingency is to open the question to dealing with other situations such as the asking of partner. My thinking is that the only time it ought to be permitted is when partner did not follow suit but in fact has a PC that would follow suit. As David's second case illustrates, things as they are, it is something that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Particularly since the law does not specify the requirement of accurate counting upon the asker. Regards Roger Pewick Houston, Tx | >Robin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 26 05:08:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PJ77S01596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:07:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5PJ71t01568 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA29285 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA06710 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:05:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106251905.PAA06710@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Roger Pewick" > In fact for about a year I have been circumspect about the legitimacy > of permitting the asking about a revoke. I am not at all sure what the above means. In Zones 2 and 7, it is certainly legitimate for defenders to ask each other about a possible revoke. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 26 05:08:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PJ7Vv01727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:07:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5PJ7Pt01698 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:07:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA29308 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA06713 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:05:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:05:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106251905.PAA06713@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au [Richard is in Zone 7, where it is legal for a defender to ask partner about possible revoke.] > However, when I am a defender, I do not ask this question when partner > shows out in spades, clubs or diamonds, but only when pard is apparently > void in hearts. > > Is this pattern of questioning improper? As long as your questioning doesn't depend on the cards you hold, I don't see any problem. Another example of an odd pattern would be to ask during the evening session, when partner is falling asleep, but not during the afternoon session. The second of the two cases at the start of this thread -- the one where a defender asks declarer when both partner and declarer show out -- is quite interesting. (Nearly) everyone wants to penalize a defender for something explicitly permitted. If that is the intent, the next edition of the Laws should add a phrase to L61B along the lines of "except on a trick on which partner as well as declarer has shown out of the suit." With the existing laws, it isn't at all clear to me how a National Authority might rule if such a case came before it. Yes, I agree that we _want_ to rule against the defender, but I'm not at all sure that would be correct. Compare, for example, L20F1, which explicitly qualifies the right to ask questions with the reference to L16. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 26 05:46:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5PJj6314920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:45:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (ns.int.kiev.ua [194.242.60.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f5PJivt14871 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 05:44:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk (ppp02.int.kiev.ua [194.242.60.102]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA17427 for ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:44:25 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Vet Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:42:28 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Quango and Nanki, don't worry. I am convinced David will soon return. Mrooowww, Liza > He goes there on Monday for a test, and expects to be out on > Wednesday. I wonder who will feed us when we are hungry if our other > slave Liz is at work? > > Mrow > *QU* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jun 26 16:34:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5Q6VXJ18426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:31:33 +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 f5Q6VRt18395 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 16:31:27 +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 ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:25:26 -0700 Message-ID: <001a01c0fe09$5317bfc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3B372CFC.9060903@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] From rgb Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:25:10 -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: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > I was allowed by Hank Youngerman to post this message on > our list. So here it is: > > +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ > I've always wondered if "Active Ethics" should have required us to > take this hand to committee. > > In the qualifying of the 1998 Life Master Pairs, playing with a new > partner and a good friend as my LHO, the auction went: > > 1N by me > 2C by LHO > 2D by partner, aleted as a transfer to hearts > Pass > 2H by me > All pass > > Down 300 > > Partner, of course, forgot that we were playing transfers over > interference. My RHO had failed to alert 2C as Cappaletti, showing an > unspecified one-suiter. Partner unfortunately had something like 3 > hearts and 5 or 6 diamonds, and so was constrained from converting to > diamonds. My RHO's failure to alert did not really contribute to our > bad result, it was our own doing. > > Since there had been an infraction, however, (two actually) we called > the director. Max Hardy came to the table. After consultation with > Henry Cukoff and Brian Moran, Max returned and ruled average for each > side. > > Well, you don't get much stronger a directing group than those three, I would like to comment on that, but shall refrain. Let's just say I am skeptical that those three were in complete agreement about the artificial score adjustment. I suspect it was a plurality decision. :)) > and Max is an expert-level player and Brian (may he rest in peace) was > a fine player also. But it really didn't seem right. We earned our > bottom. Whether the opponents are entitled to their top is possibly > another matter. The MI caused no damage, evidently. If so the opponents are entitled to their top. PP? If you give a PP for harmless Alert mistakes, there will be hundreds in every session. A lecture should suffice. > > Should we have appealed, or at least urged the directors to give us > back our bottom? Or is this just being too cute? > Certainly your opponents should have appealed. Should you have appealed? That is something that only you can answer, as no one can answer for you. The Laws do not address the matter. Participants in sports do not appeal or argue against favorable rulings, so maybe that's your guide. I wouldn't be able to resist getting the three officials raked over the coals in the NABC Appeals casebook, although for some reason only the name of the DIC for the event is provided. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 27 03:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5QHcNA18311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:38:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5QHcFt18272 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:38:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA16889 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA14427 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 13:36:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106261736.NAA14427@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L25B in action X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From page 17 of Tenerife Daily Bulletin 10 (June 26): Dealer East, auction 1C-P-P-P, West wants to change his pass. -----Begin quote----- At one table West had failed to notice his partner's opening bid, so he was passing because he did not have the values to open the bidding. Applying Law 25(a) the Pass was not inadvertent, so West was not allowed to change his call. At the other table West did not see the opening bid, which was a Strong Club. He had been thinking about how the auction might develop and forgot to respond. As his partner had not yet bid again, Law 25(b) could be applied, and he could change his call. -----End quote----- I hope the facts were mis-reported, or if not that the TD at the second table isn't a BLML reader. As I'm sure we all know, L25B applies only until LHO, not partner, calls. If it were not so, L25B should have been offered at the first table. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 27 04:48:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5QIj5O06979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:45:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5QIivt06968 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:44:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-017.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.209]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA21589 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:43:03 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:43:33 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0FE78.48885A00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25B in action Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:43:32 +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 Steve asked: >From page 17 of Tenerife Daily Bulletin 10 (June 26): Dealer East, auction 1C-P-P-P, West wants to change his pass. -----Begin quote----- At one table West had failed to notice his partner's opening bid, so he was passing because he did not have the values to open the bidding. Applying Law 25(a) the Pass was not inadvertent, so West was not allowed to change his call. At the other table West did not see the opening bid, which was a Strong Club. He had been thinking about how the auction might develop and forgot to respond. As his partner had not yet bid again, Law 25(b) could be applied, and he could change his call. -----End quote----- I hope the facts were mis-reported, or if not that the TD at the second table isn't a BLML reader. As I'm sure we all know, L25B applies only until LHO, not partner, calls. If it were not so, L25B should have been offered at the first table. -- Must be mis-reported. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 27 20:36:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5RAXuC15583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:33:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail04.onetel.net.uk (IDENT:mirapoint@mail04.onetel.net.uk [212.67.96.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5RAXnt15577 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:33:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from onetel.co.uk (async240-7.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.103.240]) by mail04.onetel.net.uk (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ABJ12821; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:31:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:41:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Vet References: <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> In-Reply-To: <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U In article <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> , Sergey Kapustin writes > >Dear Quango and Nanki, don't worry. >I am convinced David will soon return. > >Mrooowww, Liza > >> He goes there on Monday for a test, and expects to be out on >> Wednesday. I wonder who will feed u s when we are hungry if our other >> slave Liz is at work? They let him out early! Browww! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jun 27 20:55:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5RAsKU16031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:54:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5RAsCt16027 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 20:54:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15FCxq-000MEs-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:54:33 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:42:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Vet References: <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> In-Reply-To: <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Owing to a glitch on David's computer I do not know whether this email has been sent or not. Apologies if there are two copies. In article <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk>, Sergey Kapustin writes >Dear Quango and Nanki, don't worry. >I am convinced David will soon return. > >Mrooowww, Liza > >> He goes there on Monday for a test, and expects to be out on >> Wednesday. I wonder who will feed us when we are hungry if our other >> slave Liz is at work? They let him out early! Browww! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 28 00:16:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5REENv28569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:14:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from www.twigger.be (www.twigger.be [212.78.188.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5REEFt28558 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:14:16 +1000 (EST) X-WebMail-UserID: be010259@village.uunet.be Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 16:16:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002412 Subject: RE: [BLML] L25B in action Message-ID: <3B8EE668@www.twigger.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: WebMail (Hydra) SMTP v3.61.07 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Official reply from Tenerife: There is indeed some mis-reporting. Article should read : -----Begin quote----- At one table West had failed to notice his partner's opening bid, so he was passing because he did not have the values to open the bidding. Applying Law 25(a) the Pass was not inadvertent, so West was not allowed to change his call, and applying Law 25(b), his LHO had already called so this law cannot apply either. At the other table West _did_ see the opening bid, which was a Strong Club. He even "alerted" the bid (or so he thought) by placing a "pass" card on the tray by mistake. As his partner had not yet bid again, Law 25(a) could be applied, and he could change his call. -----End quote----- signed: Antonio Riccardi Chief Tournament Director Max Bavin Co-Chief Tournament Director >===== Original Message From Fearghal O'Boyle ===== >Steve asked: >From page 17 of Tenerife Daily Bulletin 10 (June 26): > >Dealer East, auction 1C-P-P-P, West wants to change his pass. >-----Begin quote----- > >At one table West had failed to notice his partner's opening bid, so he >was passing because he did not have the values to open the bidding. >Applying Law 25(a) the Pass was not inadvertent, so West was not >allowed to change his call. > >At the other table West did not see the opening bid, which was a Strong >Club. He had been thinking about how the auction might develop and >forgot to respond. As his partner had not yet bid again, Law 25(b) >could be applied, and he could change his call. > >-----End quote----- > >I hope the facts were mis-reported, or if not that the TD at the second >table isn't a BLML reader. As I'm sure we all know, L25B applies only >until LHO, not partner, calls. If it were not so, L25B should have >been offered at the first table. > >-- > > > > >Must be mis-reported. > >Best regards, >Fearghal. > Herman De Wael currently at the European Championships in Tenerife -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 28 02:12:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5RGArc27678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 02:10:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe70.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.205]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5RGAkt27668 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 02:10:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:08:53 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.135] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200106251905.PAA06710@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:07:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2001 16:08:53.0864 (UTC) FILETIME=[76372E80:01C0FF23] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 2:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Attention illegally drawn? | > From: "Roger Pewick" | > In fact for about a year I have been circumspect about the legitimacy | > of permitting the asking about a revoke. | | I am not at all sure what the above means. | | In Zones 2 and 7, it is certainly legitimate for defenders to ask each | other about a possible revoke. As the player's partner is present when he draws attention to the failure to follow suit, he has obtained information. Whether or not it has value on this occasion is irrelevant; what is relevant is that it could have value. What I was pointing out was that the information was made available not by bid or play, but by some other means. And what L73A says is that it is not a legitimate method, as I note it does not make provision for exemptions. As a related point, surely the drawing attention to another's revoke involves the creation of UI, whether or not there is law expressly permitting it. 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 Jun 28 03:14:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5RHBEq12288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:11:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5RHB7t12254 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.215]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA96688 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:09:12 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:09:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01C0FF34.57481D20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25B in action Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:09:42 +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 Herman reported: Official reply from Tenerife: There is indeed some mis-reporting. Article should read : -----Begin quote----- At one table West had failed to notice his partner's opening bid, so he was passing because he did not have the values to open the bidding. Applying Law 25(a) the Pass was not inadvertent, so West was not allowed to change his call, and applying Law 25(b), his LHO had already called so this law cannot apply either. At the other table West _did_ see the opening bid, which was a Strong Club. He even "alerted" the bid (or so he thought) by placing a "pass" card on the tray by mistake. As his partner had not yet bid again, Law 25(a) could be applied, and he could change his call. -----End quote----- signed: Antonio Riccardi Chief Tournament Director Max Bavin Co-Chief Tournament Director That's more like it. Now let's change the thread name! Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 28 05:53:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5RJosj23123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 05:50:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5RJokt23083 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 05:50:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4oe.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.14]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA05470; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:48:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <011501c0ff42$91df9f90$0e13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Nanki Poo" , References: <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Vet Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:51:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Q & NP Most pleased to hear David is out of hospital. Trust he is feeling fit enough to be a worthwhile cat slave again or will be soon. Hope your own encounters with the vet were also without incident. May you all have much to purr about. Streak et al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Quango" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 6:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Vet > Owing to a glitch on David's computer I do not know whether this email > has been sent or not. Apologies if there are two copies. > > In article <003401c0fdaf$b2bfeb00$663cf2c2@svk>, Sergey Kapustin > writes > > >Dear Quango and Nanki, don't worry. > >I am convinced David will soon return. > > > >Mrooowww, Liza > > > >> He goes there on Monday for a test, and expects to be out on > >> Wednesday. I wonder who will feed us when we are hungry if our other > >> slave Liz is at work? > > They let him out early! Browww! > > Mrow > *QU* > > -- > Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ > Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ > Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= > Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jun 28 11:12:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5S194T00630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:09:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5S18wt00626 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:08:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15FQJ0-000Puu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 02:09:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:42:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] EBL Tournament Director Course MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This appeared in Bulletin 11 from Tenerife EBL Tournament Director Course The European Bridge League is organising a TD Course to be held at Tabiano Terme in Italy from Friday 31 August (evening)till Wednesday 5th September. TDs will be picked up in Milan and transported to Tabiano Terme (near Salsomaggiore Terme). The idea is to invite two TDs from each NBO. The course will give the best TDs the opportunity to be selected for EBL events, and for most TDs it will result in gaining the necessary recognition to become Chief TD in their own country and greater authority. The course will consist of lectures, practical exercises and some written tests, but perhaps the most important aspect will be being able to share ideas and strive for uniformity in applying the laws. At the end of the course examinations will be held: 1.To appoint new TDs to be registered in the Official EBL TD Register. 2.To enable TDs already in the Official EBL TD Register to achieve a superior category in the Register. Further information about the course, including registration details, will be sent to all NBOs shortly. If countries wish to send more than two applicants they should inform the EBL office in Milan (Tel:+39 02 7000 0333, Fax:+39 02 7000 1398 e-mail:ebl@galactica.it) and this may be possible depending on the number of entries. -- 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 Jun 28 11:20:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5S1JCu00646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:19:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5S1J6t00642 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:19:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15FQRE-000G9Z-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 02:17:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 00:42:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] EBL Tournament Director Course MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This appeared in Bulletin 11 from Tenerife EBL Tournament Director Course The European Bridge League is organising a TD Course to be held at Tabiano Terme in Italy from Friday 31 August (evening)till Wednesday 5th September. TDs will be picked up in Milan and transported to Tabiano Terme (near Salsomaggiore Terme). The idea is to invite two TDs from each NBO. The course will give the best TDs the opportunity to be selected for EBL events, and for most TDs it will result in gaining the necessary recognition to become Chief TD in their own country and greater authority. The course will consist of lectures, practical exercises and some written tests, but perhaps the most important aspect will be being able to share ideas and strive for uniformity in applying the laws. At the end of the course examinations will be held: 1.To appoint new TDs to be registered in the Official EBL TD Register. 2.To enable TDs already in the Official EBL TD Register to achieve a superior category in the Register. Further information about the course, including registration details, will be sent to all NBOs shortly. If countries wish to send more than two applicants they should inform the EBL office in Milan (Tel:+39 02 7000 0333, Fax:+39 02 7000 1398 e-mail:ebl@galactica.it) and this may be possible depending on the number of entries. -- 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 Jun 30 10:36:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5U0Yhq22987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 10:34:43 +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 (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5U0YZt22944 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 10:34:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.215]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA97597 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:32:34 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:33:04 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 01:33:02 +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 The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? 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 Jun 30 16:16:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5U6Fwa00402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:15:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5U6Fpt00395 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 16:15:51 +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 f5U6F0a06439 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:15:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002e01c1012b$cbdf11e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 23:09:34 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" wrote: > > The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. > > Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? > The ACBL is probably going to adopt this policy in a pending revision to the Alert Procedure, at least for low-level doubles. Since no one seems to be able to learn the simple Alert requirements for doubles, perhaps this was inevitable. Good idea? No. We will now see selective questioning of doubles (in violation of L20F1) according to "interest in the auction," HCP, etc. I would prefer that the present Alert requirements for doubles be restated in simple language: With the exception of standard negative doubles, through four hearts, Alert all non-penalty doubles after partner has acted. No other exceptions. (I would prefer no exceptions, but that wouldn't fly.) Alert all non-penalty doubles after one's side has bid notrump. No exceptions. Alert all non-penalty doubles of notrump bids. No exceptions. Alert penalty-oriented doubles that are used in standard negative double situations, through four hearts. There, is that so hard? We will now hear from those who think it is only "unexpected" meanings that should be Alerted. Why they prefer that policy over simplicity is something I could never understand. If those rules are indeed too hard to remember, then Announce the meaning of all low-level doubles: "Penalty" or "Non-Penalty." Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jun 30 18:03:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5U81g314329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 18:01:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5U81at14323 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 18:01:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.51]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GFQH4X00.JXH for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 18:05:21 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-214-211.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.211]) by mail7.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 15/1057101); 30 Jun 2001 17:59:22 Message-ID: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:55:49 +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: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. >> Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? >Good idea? No. We will now see selective questioning Good idea? Yes. Rather than rely on speculation as Marv is forced to, I rely on my personal experience of the same rule here in Australia. Europeans such as Peter Stocken (ex EBU President I think) have stated that based on their experience, our policy seems to work (ref. ABF Management Minutes of Feb 2001, available online). l was one of the cynics when the ABF introduced the policy several years ago; I've had to eat my words. A crucial adjunct is that the front page of the ABF Convention Card includes space for "Pre Alerts: Calls that may have Unexpected Meaning/s or require Special Defence". Pairs that play Penalty Doubles of overcalls are expected to include such doubles here. One glances at the section as one sits down. My experience is that it works and is good for bridge. Which reminds me - that ancient ACBL CC has been around for donkey's years, and could do with being updated , couldn't it? I will be at the World Junior Pairs (no screens) on the weekend, and will let BLML know if the "no alerting of doubles" causes any serious problems. It may take a while for me to post to BLML, as internet access in a small town in Poland may be tricky - perhaps after the event from Krakow where Net access is easier. If anyone would like a copy of the Conditions of Contest for next week's WJP, please email me privately and I will send it to you. Yes, it includes "don't alert Doubles". >I would prefer that the present Alert requirements for doubles >be restated in simple language: > >With the exception of standard negative doubles, through four >hearts, Alert all non-penalty doubles after partner has acted. > >No other exceptions. (I would prefer no exceptions, but that >wouldn't fly.) > >Alert all non-penalty doubles after one's side has bid notrump. > >No exceptions. > >Alert all non-penalty doubles of notrump bids. > >No exceptions. > >Alert penalty-oriented doubles that are used in standard >negative double situations, through four hearts. > >There, is that so hard? Yes, it sure is. I can barely follow your rules. "penalty-oriented"? "standard negative double situations?" How about the alertability of 1S (2C) P (P) X, X sensibly showing 2+ clubs because the direct Double of 2m is Penalty and you're playing a weak 1NT? Dbl is probably take-out oriented but 2+ has some penalty-oriented reasonaing behind it too. You really want to open such cans of worms? Of course, you guys are used to all the ridiculously complex American Alerting Regulations, by which standards [a word which I reluctantly use in this context :)) ] Marv's over-complex suggestion may even seem relatively painless. >We will now hear from those who think it is only "unexpected" >meanings that should be Alerted. Why they prefer that policy >over simplicity is something I could never understand. Possibly they are going on what seems to work in practice, in those parts of the world where such methods have been tried. Those who thought that such methods would be a disaster, such as me, have been left with egg on our faces. >If those rules are indeed too hard to remember, then Announce >the meaning of all low-level doubles: "Penalty" or "Non-Penalty." What exactly does "Announce" mean? It is an ACL term with which I am not fully familiar. Does it mean that one says "Double - Takeout" or "Double - Penalty" as one makes a call, as they do at bridge clubs in China? I feel sure that this is not the case in America, and that it simply means that one tells the opponents as one sits down, but I do not see how this works in practice where for many pairs some low level doubles are take-out and others are penalty, making this Announcing stuff useless. I think that with these new alerting rules, the WBF are making a perfectly valid attempt to make bridge a better game for all. Asuming that supporting a WBF stance does not result in a lifetime ban from BLML for heresy, I can see no reason not to support the WBF's initiative. 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 Jun 30 23:33:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UDWlt16455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:32:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.de (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5UDWct16444 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:32:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd03.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15GKpf-0006Aa-07; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:30:43 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.80.217.155]) by fmrl03.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15GKpX-1DkyO0C; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:30:35 +0200 Message-ID: <3B3DD468.3030406@vwalther.de> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 15:30:16 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; de-DE; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607 Netscape6/6.1b1 X-Accept-Language: de-DE MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > Marv French wrote: > >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >>>The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. >>>Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? >>> > >>Good idea? No. We will now see selective questioning >> > > Good idea? Yes. Rather than rely on speculation as Marv is It has been adopted in Germany. At first I hated it. Now I see some advanteges. I hated it in situations like this: It's quite common, that there are no or incomplete CC's at club events. What are you doing with AKDxxx in Club and 2 small spades if Partners 1N (12-14) is doubled? (If double=penalty i'd like to pass. if double shows majors 3 clubs looks fine) Asking may be as bad as bidding or passing. So pass, look what happens and call the TD. That will give a good result and make the opponents feel happy. On the other hand I hated the old ruling in situations like this: N E S W 1H - X - 3C(weak) - X(1) Pass -3S - pass - ?? Having something like KT Axx Jxxx QJxx West passes 3 Spades when the double (1) was alerted as forcing for one round. With the same hand 4 Spades is played when the double is not alerted. It is nearly impossible to find out that UI was used. Greetings Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/