From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 1 02:58:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UGwF118719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 02:58:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.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 f5UGw7t18674 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 02:58:08 +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 f5UGslf26860; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:54:48 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:55:31 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:55 PM +1000 6/30/01, Peter Gill wrote: >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? No. One says "Double", and one's partner says "penalty" or "takeout", while tapping the alert strip (if bidding boxes are in use). An announcement is a form of alert which includes the explanation, rather than waiting for opponents to ask. Currently, three things are announced: Opening or overcalling 1NT ranges which fall completely or partly outside of 15-18 HCP (state the range, eg, "12-14"), transfers at the two, three or four level in response to a natural 1NT or 2NT opening or overcall ("transfer"), and a forcing or semi-forcing 1NT response to a 1H or 1S opening ("forcing" or "semi-forcing"). 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/AwUBOz4EqL2UW3au93vOEQIxmQCg8Z6XA3T1PVTDNdzCwd4AEQ+mW6cAnj+a UW/pDHjomAUxUFRVnqfaxFvz =Bddz -----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 Jul 1 03:03:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UH3aw20491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 03:03:36 +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 f5UH3Ut20462 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 03:03:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA21967 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:01:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA18108 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:01:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106301701.NAA18108@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Volker R. Walther" > It's quite common, that there are no or incomplete CC's at club > events. What are you doing with [...] if > Partners 1N (12-14) is doubled? What _I'm_ doing is asking about the double every single time, regardless of my hand. Hmmm... what about in the EBU? A non-alerted double has to be for penalties there, so I don't need to ask. But an alerted double could be anything. Could I ask regardless of my hand? Or would I be in trouble if I ask and pass and happen to hold a balanced 10-count? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 1 03:11:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UHAqK23043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 03:10:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5UHAkt23019 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 03:10:47 +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 NAA22075 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:08:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA18229 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:08:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200106301708.NAA18229@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] ACBL Announcements Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > What exactly does "Announce" mean? It is like an alert and (absent screens) is given by the partner of the player who makes the call in question. The difference is that instead of saying "alert," the player says something more informative. As of now, the only announcements are the range of certain 1NT openings, "transfer," "semi-forcing," and "forcing." The latter two apply only to a 1NT response to an opening bid of one of a major. The announcement system has worked well, but I suspect part of the success is that the circumstances and language are precisely defined. Nevertheless, there are proposals to extend announcements to other situations. > Does it mean that one says > "Double - Takeout" or "Double - Penalty" as one makes a call, No. > as they do at bridge clubs in China? !!! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 1 03:30:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UHTwD27989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 03:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f5UHTqt27985 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 03:29:53 +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 f5UHT2a21316 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 10:21:10 -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: "Peter Gill" > 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. Not speculation, but experience. Prior to the Announcement of weak notrump openings, we had selective questioning of the opening 1NT range. By selective I mean that players would pass with bad hands and question with good hands. The same thing will happen with ambiguous doubles; players will only ask the meaning when they have an interest in the answer. Besides, a fact ignored by Peter and most of the world, it is contrary to L20F1 for a player to ask what a specific call means. > > 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. ACBL TDs refuse to enforce the regulation that requires a pair's two convention cards to be on the table, completed and legible, so that wouldn't work here. I play penalty doubles of overcalls, and I imagine that the non-Alert of doubles will not apply for us penalty doublers. > 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? They change it at reasonable intervals. What do you expect, annual updates? The present one seems good enough to me, except that the policy of pre-printing a multitude of partnership agreements makes the fonts so small that it's hard to read. > > >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. I imagine you don't play any complicated conventions, if you find these hard to follow. > "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 reasoning behind it too. You really want to > open such cans of worms? Players can ask for further clarification of an Announced meaning. I am not greatly in favor of Announcements for doubles, but merely prefer that to non-Alerts. > 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. ACBL regs are complex, but I don't see that my suggestions are. > > >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. The trouble with Alerting only the unexpected is that expectations change with time, and are different in different locales at the same time. The very gradual adoption of negative doubles is an example. They began as rarities and gradually became near-universal. Moreover, the West was slower to adopt them than the East. When the ratio was 50-50, what would be "expected"? > >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 ACBL 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. You have the wrong impression. We Announces the meaning of partner's call, not our own. The Chinese approach is interesting. At one time I wondered whether bridge should have another call ("Takeout") to remove the ambiguity of doubles. That might make a good game, enabling a player to double for penalties or ask partner to bid. > > 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. Different bridge cultures have different problems, evidently. 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 Jul 1 04:13:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UICTt28020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 04:12:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5UICNt28016 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 04:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt948.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.136]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA04544 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007701c1018f$b19d1f20$88a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "BLML" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 13:08:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > > From: "Peter Gill" > > > What exactly does "Announce" mean? It is an ACBL 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. > > You have the wrong impression. We Announces the meaning of partner's call, > not our own. The Chinese approach is interesting. At one time I wondered > whether bridge should have another call ("Takeout") to remove the > ambiguity of doubles. That might make a good game, enabling a player to > double for penalties or ask partner to bid. The new "Takeout" call would make the game simpler for beginners, I would guess. Gadget freaks would love it. When would "Redouble" be allowed? Over both "Double" and "Takeout"? Would it still be called "Redouble"? Would you also recommend adding "Help" as a "Redouble" variant? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 1 04:15:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UIFRf28032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 04:15:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.226.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5UIFLt28028 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 04:15:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from toshiba (225.244.p2p.sandy.ru [195.122.225.244]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1-AGK-0.5) with SMTP id WAA45106 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 22:08:51 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <006701c1018f$f7e7cfc0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 22:10:37 +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 In Russia we don't alert doubles for several years and we don't have any problems with it. Sergei Litvak. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 4:33 AM Subject: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 1 07:00:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5UKxG719670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 06:59:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5UKxAt19666 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 06:59:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h168.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.168]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f5UKvB815591; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 00:57:11 +0400 Message-ID: <3B3E2FA6.FC504406@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 23:59:34 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sergei Litvak CC: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <006701c1018f$f7e7cfc0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Sergei Litvak пишет: > In Russia we don't alert doubles for several years and we don't have any > problems with it. It is Sergey's personal opinion - I support Marv position:) Vitold (also from Russia) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 1 07:14:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ULEce19691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 07:14:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5ULEXt19687 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 07:14:33 +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 f5ULDga28646; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:13:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002901c101a9$5662c960$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jerry Fusselman" , "BLML" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007701c1018f$b19d1f20$88a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:12:11 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > From: "Peter Gill" > > > > > What exactly does "Announce" mean? It is an ACBL 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. > > > > You have the wrong impression. We Announces the meaning of partner's call, > > not our own. The Chinese approach is interesting. At one time I wondered > > whether bridge should have another call ("Takeout") to remove the > > ambiguity of doubles. That might make a good game, enabling a player to > > double for penalties or ask partner to bid. > > The new "Takeout" call would make the game simpler for beginners, I would > guess. Gadget freaks would love it. > > When would "Redouble" be allowed? Over both "Double" and "Takeout"? Would it > still be called "Redouble"? How about allowing "Double" over "Takeout" to show a good hand? > > Would you also recommend adding "Help" as a "Redouble" variant? Let's not do too much at once, Jerry. :)) 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 Jul 1 07:24:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f5ULOeH19704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 07:24:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5ULOZt19700 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 07:24:35 +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 f5ULNja29613 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003701c101aa$bdb04b00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <006701c1018f$f7e7cfc0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:14:19 -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: "Sergei Litvak" wrote: > In Russia we don't alert doubles for several years and we don't have any > problems with it. > How do players find out the meaning of a double? Please describe this process for us. 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 Jul 1 16:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f616AdI25000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:10:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.226.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f616AVt24955 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from toshiba (225.244.p2p.sandy.ru [195.122.225.244]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1-AGK-0.5) with SMTP id KAA80925; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 10:05:45 +0400 (MSD) Message-ID: <001f01c101f4$1c2acea0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Marvin L. French" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <006701c1018f$f7e7cfc0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> <003701c101aa$bdb04b00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 10:07:28 +0400 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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "Sergei Litvak" wrote: > > > In Russia we don't alert doubles for several years and we don't have any > > problems with it. > > > How do players find out the meaning of a double? Please describe this > process for us. It is very simple: if your opponent made a double you ask about the meaning of the double every time. (In club game if you know the style of the opponnets double you may not ask). Usually you ask about the meaning with word like "take-out?" or "negative". It seems to me that it is easier to both pairs, because you should not think whether this ouble is alertable or not and you can askin any case. We use this policy of not alertng doubles for 3 or 4 years and I have not seen any appeal with this case. As far as know the same policy of not alerting doubles (and redoubles) is in Israel for at least 5 years. The y also find this more comfortable for players. Sincerely, Sergei Litvak. > 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 Jul 1 20:57:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f61AugF17013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:56:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f61Auat17009 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15GesC-0008CO-05; Sun, 01 Jul 2001 12:54:40 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.0.204.8]) by fmrl00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15Gerw-1rMqB6C; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 12:54:24 +0200 Message-ID: <3B3F014A.2080606@vwalther.de> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 12:54:02 +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: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <006701c1018f$f7e7cfc0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> <003701c101aa$bdb04b00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001f01c101f4$1c2acea0$f4e17ac3@toshiba> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >>From: "Sergei Litvak" wrote: >> >> >>>In Russia we don't alert doubles for several years and we don't have any >>>problems with it. >>How do players find out the meaning of a double? Please describe this >>process for us. >> > It is very simple: if your opponent made a double you ask about the meaning > of the double every time. What do you think about introducing a two faced Alert card: On one side it is labelled "forcing, standard". This side is used after takeout or negative doubles, after transfer bids or a NT answer, that is forcing. This side is shown, if the bid usually will not be passed. The other side, labelled "artifical" is shown, whenever the bid shows additional information over a hand or may lead to an unexpected pass. For example: Support doubles (mostly forcing, but additional information) Answer to a transfer bid. Nonforcing bids of a possibly short color. Nonforcing color shifts. Nonforcing jump bids. Greetings V. 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 Mon Jul 2 01:48:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f61FlS220325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 01:47:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.de (mailout00.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f61FlKt20283 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 01:47:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout00.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15GjPY-0002zW-0C; Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:45:24 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.162.122]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15GjPX-215KKmC; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 17:45:23 +0200 Message-ID: <3B3F4613.AD6A1D58@t-online.de> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:47:31 +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] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> 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 Fearghal O'Boyle schrieb: > The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. > > Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > -- Hi gang, Germany isn't the only european country to adopt this rule( since late last year, it also includes redoubles and passes), Austria did so too, even before Germany. Of course is this a two-edged blade, but in my experience there have been no TD calls because of questions about doubles. I have directed about 50 tournaments since the rule went into effect ( from club level to national championships) and played in a like number ( same range), and there never was a call for the TD because of this rule (not that I am aware of, at least). There is an explanation for this, I believe. If you ask for the NT range and pass ( or some such shenanigan) partner can "work" with this UI ( if the opponents are not aware of this, of course). If you ask about a double and pass partner is less well placed. Of course you may have transmitted UI, but most often this will relate to shape, not to strength, and so will be less likely to affect the result of the board. If you get the answer "penalty" and pass, what information can partner glean from this and what shall he do? Raise himself a level? Redouble? Not likely. If the answer is negative, responsive, action etc ( non-penalty, effectively) and you pass, partner might infer that you may have run from a penalty double. Then again, maybe you wouldn`t have. Big deal. Any transmitted UI is much less likely to be of value and to lead to a TD call. I won't try to sell you that there is no UI if these calls are never alerted. There will never be a method except automatic written explanations available only to the opponents, not to partner. This method will not be adopted anytime soon, if ever. Perhaps we will live to see computergenerated explanations of the bidding based on system-descriptions of participating pairs, but this will obviously only be possible at the highest level where screens eliminate most problems of this sort much easier. Fact is: TD calls because of UI after questions about doubles are way down! Sometimes you exorcized the Devil with Beelzebub, but I can't envision a perfect solution for this kind of problems. In my experience as a director and a player the new regulations are much superior. 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 Mon Jul 2 02:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f61GZqY07844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:35:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f61GZjt07802 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:35:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-202.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.202]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f61GXlM19185 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 18:33:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B3F2582.CF37C836@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 15:28:34 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife Championship (June 2001) 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> <01cc01c0f75a$a4143940$02001aac@dalton> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just bqck from Tenerife (still not yet used to my french keyboard - see the q above) Lucas Eduardo de Mendoza y Contreras wrote: > > 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. We did in fact get payed, although a bit late. The EBL still has money problems with the Spanish federation and the final word is that Spain would be excluded from the EBL. The tournament went well though. > 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) Very loud and noisy. Did add some charm to the championships. > for your abusive practice > over the workers. >From what we understood, the workers were protesting that the hotel had been built (some years ago) by African (almost-)slave workers. > I am a member of the list and spanish player and say you > the news when I Know.Best wishes. Lucas Mendoza > I'll have 41 appeals to show you shortly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 09:08:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f61N6B605301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:06:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falhost.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f61N66t05297 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:06:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA10229; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:04:05 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma010148; Mon, 2 Jul 01 09:03:57 +1000 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f61N3vm21957 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f61N3uq21890; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:03:56 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA22552; Mon, 2 Jul 01 08:48:59 EST Message-Id: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:04:02 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, I would be interested in BLML feedback on this appeal from a local (NSW, Australia) congress. [I was not involved in any capacity so the facts may be slightly different from described. Feel free to ask questions and I will try and provide more detail if required.] This was a typical congress - appeals committee formed from 3 experienced players in the event (who were not in contention), who are not experts in the laws of bridge. I would be interested in how a procedure could be put in place so that the appropriate laws, considerations are at the fingertips of the appeals committee. Any ideas? [I have sat on many appeals committees with fine/expert players who wanted to make rulings that had no basis in law but met their own standard of fair (until the law(s) was pointed out to them by me - and I am no expert)] S- 985 H- QJ10843 D- 74 C- 65 S- A103 S- KQ42 H- AK652 H- 97 D- J32 D- Q1086 C- AQ C- J32 S- J76 H- void D- AK95 C- K109874 2H, pass, pass, 2NT pass, 3C, X, 3NT all pass The bidding: West North East South -- 2H Pass Pass 2NT Pass 3C Dble 3NT All pass Lead: C6 Play: T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. [Hesitation agreed] T2: D2, 4, Q, K Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point and declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts and 2 clubs. The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether to win the CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a spade) but in the end decided to win the CQ. The appeals committee agreed this was a valid bridge reason for the hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. Comments appreciated. Best Regards, Peter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 10:30:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f620T0305341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:29:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f620Spt05333 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:28:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f620PN817272 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:24:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Besides, a fact ignored by Peter and most of the world, it is contrary to >L20F1 for a player to ask what a specific call means. You know very well, Marv, that there are only two people in the *entire world* who care about this - and I doubt either one of us is ever going to get it changed. :-) 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/AwUBOz+/yr2UW3au93vOEQLtiQCdFz8G6D/KZDI/NhwVQlNW+gyk/NgAn24n NnnlOw1fT1VvZ12/3ekzZ0Ic =0tvn -----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 Jul 2 10:30:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f620T0D05342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:29:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f620Sqt05334 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:28:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f620PY817427 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:25:35 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200106301708.NAA18229@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200106301708.NAA18229@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:24:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Announcements Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The announcement system has worked well, but I suspect part of the >success is that the circumstances and language are precisely defined. >Nevertheless, there are proposals to extend announcements to other >situations. Some people are already doing it. Specifically, they announce a "short club" with "could be short" instead of alerting. Those that do *will* not change, even when told the proper procedure. 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/AwUBOz+/z72UW3au93vOEQInLQCghUTwtdXQvlpQPhPvWf4jL16zKKQAoKHN +pCvU9lGwjiKUas0rYyHohNA =uwlt -----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 Jul 2 10:40:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f620cZA05361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:38:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f620cTt05357 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:38:30 +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 f620ZCf29580; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:35:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Cc: "Marvin L. French" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marvin L. French wrote: > They change it at reasonable intervals. What do you expect, annual >updates? The present one seems good enough to me, except that the policy >of pre-printing a multitude of partnership agreements makes the fonts so >small that it's hard to read. I perceive these defects with the ACBL CC: 1. There should be a front page with certain always (or often) needed information: general system, 1NT range, some other stuff. Similar to the EBU practice. 2. The card as presently designed is difficult to properly fill out for forcing club systems, and for some other conventions. 3. Checkboxes and abbreviations or not, I often run out of room trying to describe something. Maybe I should learn to print in Arial7. Not. 4. The score card should *not* be included on the back of the CC. Period. Exclamation point. 5. The card probably ought to be an 8x11 page, held landscape-wise, and folded once. This give four roughtly 5x8 inch pages. Enough room, I think. 6. Yes, I know one can edit a computer generated CC so that space can made for one's unique system. But (a) the only CC editor of which I'm aware is windows only, so (b) editing a CC on a Mac or L*nix platform isn't all that easy, and (c) doing so at a game, when you've forgotten your usual card, is impossible. 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+AwUBOz/CEL2UW3au93vOEQJ6GACY3TNTYgJ/Qi+JAX9DhmdeCdyyqQCg64Ev qtdrFc5viJXSZfQnhwxJqFQ= =mwW4 -----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 Jul 2 11:23:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f621NPk05413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:23:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from m1.bezeqint.net (m1.bezeqint.net [192.115.106.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f621NJt05409 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:23:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from isdn.net.il ([212.199.74.92]) by m1.bezeqint.net (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ADK85139 (AUTH zvika3); Mon, 2 Jul 2001 04:21:17 +0300 (IDT) Message-ID: <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 04:20:53 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en,hebrew MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$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 According to L20F1, how do you find out what a double is, when it is not alerted? zvika Israel Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Besides, a fact ignored by Peter and most of the world, it is contrary to > >L20F1 for a player to ask what a specific call means. > > You know very well, Marv, that there are only two people in the > *entire world* who care about this - and I doubt either one of us is > ever going to get it changed. :-) > > 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/AwUBOz+/yr2UW3au93vOEQLtiQCdFz8G6D/KZDI/NhwVQlNW+gyk/NgAn24n > NnnlOw1fT1VvZ12/3ekzZ0Ic > =0tvn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 12:05:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6224rQ05460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:04:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6224Vt05455 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:04:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.5]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010702020229.MDOT284.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:02:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c1029b$dd14d140$0504ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:08:18 +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 According to L20F1, you can ask. So the question is UI to your partner, but that is not a problem, the problem arises when the answer is such that you take action you would not have taken if the answer had been different. Now the opps have AI that may not be beneficial to your side. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 3:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles > According to L20F1, how do you find out what a double is, when it is not > alerted? > > zvika > Israel > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > >Besides, a fact ignored by Peter and most of the world, it is contrary to > > >L20F1 for a player to ask what a specific call means. > > > > You know very well, Marv, that there are only two people in the > > *entire world* who care about this - and I doubt either one of us is > > ever going to get it changed. :-) > > > > 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/AwUBOz+/yr2UW3au93vOEQLtiQCdFz8G6D/KZDI/NhwVQlNW+gyk/NgAn24n > > NnnlOw1fT1VvZ12/3ekzZ0Ic > > =0tvn > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 12:16:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f622G3T05479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:16:03 +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-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 f622Fvt05475 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:15:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15GtEg-0006RM-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:14:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:36:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C10104.9B5C50E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. > >Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? No. After the first round, probably yes. But on the first round there is no reason why you should be surprised by a double. Suppose you are playing in England with English methods, and English alerting. Your partner opens 2H, weak, and RHO doubles. This will be a takeout double 98% of the time, it will not be alerted, and everyone gets on with the game. But you can play it to mean anything. So if it shows spades and a longer minor, that is legal - and in England it would be alerted. On the first round, where most people play doubles the same, it would be silly not to alert for the odd people who play them differently. After the first round doubles become homogenous, they are often ill- defined, and are rarely played as artificial, and people would usually ask in any doubtful situation. So, I believe you need first-round alerting of doubles, but thereafter I see little need. -- 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 Jul 2 14:59:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f624vse20303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 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 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 f624vnt20299 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:57:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f624ula00345 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:56:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a001c102b3$30d5bd00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 21:45:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Marv wrote: > > >Besides, a fact ignored by Peter and most of the world, it is contrary to > >L20F1 for a player to ask what a specific call means. > > You know very well, Marv, that there are only two people in the > *entire world* who care about this - and I doubt either one of us is > ever going to get it changed. :-) > Surely more than two? There are quite a few BLML subscribers who insist that the Laws must be followed, even those we don't like. I have been given this lecture often. Are you telling me they make exceptions for themselves? :-) Marv Marvin L. French, 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 Jul 2 15:50:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f625nrM21703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:49:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f625nVt21698 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:49:44 +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 f625mXa21099 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 22:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a501c102ba$697da8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 22:46:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Zvi Shilon" > According to L20F1, how do you find out what a double is, when it is not > alerted? > You say something like, "Would you please explain your side's bidding up to this point?" L20F1 was changed from "complete explanation of any call made by an opponent" to "complete explanation of the opponents' auction" in 1987. The reason is pretty obvious: Players were doing things like asking about a 3C bid when holding clubs. Although that was illegal, the player could argue that he was just going by the Laws. The change was made to discourage this sort of thing. Now, when there have been only two calls by a side, e.g., 1S and double, asking for an explanation of the auction is a pretty transparent request to know the meaning of the double. Questioning the double would therefore be harmless. Besides, such a question is unlikely to transmit UI. Nevertheless, I think it is best to follow the formula prescribed by L20F1 for all questioning. It doesn't seem right that players should pick and choose the conditions under which violating L20F1 would be acceptable. Of course an "explanation of the auction" is not a review of the auction. Only those calls that are the subject of a special partnership agreement need be explained (see L75C), and calls already explained need not be explained again. I would like to exclude calls whose meaning is plainly shown on the CC. As was true prior to 1987, it is still true that such questioning may lead to a violation of L16A, as the footnote to L20F1 points out. When the ACBL adopts the policy of not Alerting doubles, as is probable soon, it will still require Alerts for doubles with "unusual or unexpected meanings." The new policy will probably apply to both support doubles and the failure to make a support double, but I shall no doubt have to continue Alerting my penalty doubles of overcalls. Yuk! Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 2 16:03:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6262bt24487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:02:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6262Nt24401 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:02:27 +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 f6261Sa25606 for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2001 23:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c301c102bc$3711b8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] Re: CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 22:58:36 -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" Sorry about the length, everyone. I got carried away. > > > They change it at reasonable intervals. What do you expect, annual > >updates? The present one seems good enough to me, except that the policy > >of pre-printing a multitude of partnership agreements makes the fonts so > >small that it's hard to read. > > I perceive these defects with the ACBL CC: > > 1. There should be a front page with certain always (or often) needed > information: general system, 1NT range, some other stuff. Similar to > the EBU practice. Looking at the CC, I see a place for general system and a prominent place for 1NT range (which will be Announceable for all ranges soon). > 2. The card as presently designed is difficult to properly fill out > for forcing club systems, and for some other conventions. The ACBL CC is meant to show every detail of a system or convention. Just fill out what is required, and use Alert explanations to disclose the rest. If you follow the instructions at www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm , no one can complain that you haven't fulfilled CC requirements. Those instructions start by saying that the CC provides "a comprehensive overview" of your system. Excessive detail is neither required nor desirable. > 3. Checkboxes and abbreviations or not, I often run out of room > trying to describe something. Maybe I should learn to print in > Arial7. Not. Same comment. When there is one blank line provided, just put the most important information on it, and don't write small. > 4. The score card should *not* be included on the > back of the CC. Period. Exclamation point. The vast majority of players do not use the score card on the back of their CC. They use the reverse side of a separate (blank) CC. The two are often enclosed in a plastic holder, convention card in front, score card in back, which is indeed the equivalent of what you don't like. I don't like it because the card is usually not folded, as it should be, and is fl opped over on the table for leisurely scoring, letting opponents see the scores for deals they have not yet played. A recent experience at the Las Vegas regional Open Pair championship is typical. When I came to the table, a woman opponent was entering a score on the back of an unfolded CC, with very neat and legible writing. I asked her to hide what she was doing, but was ignored. Finished, she replaced the CC to its former position--under her arse! After the first board, she repeated the whole procedure: pulling out the CC from its hiding place, splatting it out on the table, leisurely entering the score, and replacing it. Having already used up my quota of futile TD calls (2) in regard to ACBL regulations for that session, I let it pass. As used by my partnerships, the CC is folded in half. It is designed to be so folded. We have a score sheet inside, and when entering scores we partially open the CC like a book and *privately* enter scores. The folded CC takes up less room on the table, another plus, since four cards are supposed to be on the table. We turn up the side that has relevance, or might have relevance, for the current state of the auction. When defending we turn the side up that has lead and carding agreements on it, before the opening lead is made. In short, the fault is not so much with the CC as the way it is employed. But it is too cluttered, and the print too small, if the as-printed version is used. > 5. The card probably ought to be an 8x11 page, held landscape-wise, > and folded once. This give four roughtly 5x8 inch pages. Enough room, > I think. See reply to No. 2. I think it's big enough now, at least for disclosing a la ACBL (other SOs may have a different view). > 6. Yes, I know one can edit a computer generated CC so that space can > made for one's unique system. But (a) the only CC editor of which I'm > aware is windows only, so (b) editing a CC on a Mac or L*nix platform > isn't all that easy, > Can't you download the ACBL's bit-mapped CC file and read it on some Mac software that lets you edit it? > and (c) doing so at a game, when you've > forgotten your usual card, is impossible. I make multiple copies of my usual card and keep them in different places, including the car. Doesn't always work, and I too dislike the chore of making out a new one. Of course I play a simple system... Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 2 17:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f627TVA25300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:29:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f627TQt25271 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:29:26 +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 RAA07698 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:33:46 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:18:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:24:11 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/07/2001 05:22:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [snip] >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. Last Sunday, I played in a Swiss Teams which used the WBF Victory Point scale. My team-mates were notorious for their disorganisation, habitually violating L90B1 by arriving a quarter-hour or so after the official starting time. So the SO instructed the TD to fine our team 3 imps for each 7 minutes (or part thereof) our team-mates were late. The TD therefore fined our side 6 imps. However, we had won the match by such a massive margin that the PP did not affect our 25 vp blitz. What the SO's directive did do was give our opponents a *procedural bonus* of 2 vp, by reducing their losing margin. Question 1: Was the SO's directive legal? Question 2: Is any score adjustment relatively meaningless in the first round of a Swiss Teams scored by vps? IMHO, a more appropriate PP would have been to refuse my team-mates' entry for the next Sunday Swiss. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 18:13:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f628Cpr11103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:12:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f628Cht11056 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:12:44 +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, 2 Jul 2001 10:12:07 +0200 Message-ID: <016501c102ce$a7bec360$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Clever, or sloppy? Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:11:52 +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 f628Ckt11074 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Clever, or sloppy? > 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. Not to mention that his partner (who is on his side and had heard the auction) could (should!) have called the director immediately after the 1C bid. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 19:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6293NI22660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6293Gt22656 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id F14F92A47BA; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:01:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 9D3752A4C38 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:01:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 12437 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2001 08:56:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by 217.74.65.40 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2001 08:56:37 -0000 Message-ID: <3B4036A5.2010801@interia.pl> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:53:57 +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: 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-Footer: X-EMID: 704feacc 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 > forced to, I rely on my personal experience of the same rule > here in Australia. We don't alert doubles in Poland for several months. My experience is very much like Peter's; good idea in general. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A----------------- Czy w domu Big Brother dawalo sie wyczuc nieszczerosc? http://relacje.interia.pl/id/relacja?cid=9476 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 19:29:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f629T9Z22678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:29:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f629T4t22674 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:29:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010702092707.BEWG11209.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:27:07 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] From rgb Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:33:58 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <001a01c0fe09$5317bfc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >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. It is at management's insistance that only the name of the DIC is reported. Linda > >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 Mon Jul 2 20:28:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62ARdL22718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:27:39 +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-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 f62ARWt22710 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:27:32 +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 15H0tY-0001EW-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:25:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:30:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@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 >According to L20F1, how do you find out what a double is, when it is not >alerted? I am glad you asked Marv this, and to save his computer a few electrons I shall answer you. 1NT 2H 2S 2NT 3C 3H 4H P 4S P P 4NT 5D X ? According to the known world [except for three members of BLML]: "What is the double?" "One or four key-cards." According to three members of BLML: "Please explain the auction" "2H is natural, may be fairly weak, a second suit is unlikely unless he is 6-4" "2NT is an artificial game try - or better" "3H shows a good suit, probably minimum, but not awful. He certainly will not have a second suit of diamonds." "Pass is forcing, seeking more information. It is somewhat encouraging, but does not suggest a heart lead if partner is on lead." "Pass is forcing, nothing much to say." "4NT is Roman Key-card Blackwood." "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz." "One or ...." "COME ON AT TABLE THREE: IF YOU ARE NOT FINISHED IN TWO MINUTES YOU WILL LOSE YOUR LAST BOARD!" ".... four key-cards." -- 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 Jul 2 20:28:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62ARfT22719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:27:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f62ARWt22711 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:27:33 +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 15H0tY-0001EV-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:25:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 03:34:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal References: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> In-Reply-To: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman writes >This was a typical congress - appeals committee formed from 3 experienced >players in the event (who were not in contention), who are not experts in >the laws of bridge. I would be interested in how a procedure could be put >in place so that the appropriate laws, considerations are at the fingertips >of the appeals committee. Any ideas? Get the Director. He is the man to tell the AC what the Law is. >[I have sat on many appeals committees with fine/expert players who wanted >to make rulings that had no basis in law but met their own standard of fair >(until the law(s) was pointed out to them by me - and I am no expert)] Good. But if you have any doubts about the Law, call the Director back. -- 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 Jul 2 22:21:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62CKkH03033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:20:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f109.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62CKet03001 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:20:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 05:18:37 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:18:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: tsvecfob@iol.ie Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 13:18:37 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2001 12:18:37.0710 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F3622E0:01C102F1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Forget all you read in the papers or see on TV. The big difference between the North and South of Ireland is in the North we don't alert doubles. Down South they do. I don't know that either creates particular problems even when we meet in IBU competitions, (N rules in N, S rules in S). > >>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 >> >> >>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/ > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 22:30:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62CU3P06196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:30:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62CTtt06152 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:29:56 +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, 2 Jul 2001 14:29:23 +0200 Message-ID: <03da01c102f2$97eb3580$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:29:07 +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 f62CTwt06170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL convention card has one big flaw. It is made for the people who fill it out, rather than for the opponents who are supposed to read it. In other CC's it is easy to look up the meaning of a bid (or an auction) by looking under the opening bid that was used. The ACBL CC is a checklist for conventions: - 1NT, partner? - 15-17 - Stayman, Jacoby, Texas, Lebensohl? - Yep etc... When an opponents needs to know whether a 2C response to 1H (P-1H; 2C) was Drury he needs to look under the major openings. When he wants to know the meaning of 2S (P-1H;2S) He has to look under 'other conventions' to find out whether it is weak, invitational, fit showing or plain conventional (which again may be found under the 1M openings). It is not a miracle that ACBL players don't have their CC's visible on the table if the design of the CC (including the back) shows that it is meant for themselves, rather than for the opponents. On the other hand.... Most ACBL players seem content with this way of using the CC. So why change it? It seems reasonable though to require WBF CC's at higher level events at NABC's so that people from abroad can read the CC's too. I don't see that happen though. (It doesn't seem American to do.) Greetings, Rik (Who learned to play bridge while living in the 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 Jul 2 22:37:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62CbCx08776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:37:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62Cb5t08742 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:37:05 +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 OAA10352; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:31:33 +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 OAA20008; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:34:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010702143939.00819ba0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:39:39 +0200 To: "Peter Newman" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal In-Reply-To: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:04 2/07/01 +1000, Peter Newman wrote: AG : I don't know what the AC did or did not use as basis for its ruling -you seem to imply they did the wrong thing- , but the item to use is obviously L73F2, which allows redress only if there was "no valid reson to justify the action" (here, the break of tempo) and if "he could have known, etc.". Here, it would be reasonable to decide the latter condition to be fulfilled, but certainly not the first. The point made by West is not without interest (he could reasonably suppose South has more spades than his partner) and justifies the tempo. Of course, West would have done better thinking about it immediately, but it is quite possible that he saw the alternative line of play too late. The last line of L73D1 settles the case. BTW, if the only problem was whether to hold up or not, West could have worked it defore playing from the dummy, couldn't he ? So, south's assumption is slightly irrealistic -irrelevant, I know. > > S- 985 > H- QJ10843 > D- 74 > C- 65 > >S- A103 S- KQ42 >H- AK652 H- 97 >D- J32 D- Q1086 >C- AQ C- J32 > > S- J76 > H- void > D- AK95 > C- K109874 > > 2H, pass, pass, 2NT > pass, 3C, X, 3NT > all pass > > The bidding: > > West North East South > -- 2H Pass Pass > 2NT Pass 3C Dble > 3NT All pass >Lead: C6 > >Play: >T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* >Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. >[Hesitation agreed] >T2: D2, 4, Q, K > >Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point and >declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts and 2 clubs. > >The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. > >EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether to win the >CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a spade) but in the end >decided to win the CQ. The appeals committee agreed this was a valid bridge >reason for the hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. > >Comments appreciated. > >Best Regards, > >Peter > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 22:46:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62CkWF11856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62CkOt11824 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:46:25 +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 OAA02401; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:44:01 +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 OAA25786; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:44:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010702144857.0081a9e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:48:57 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Cc: "Marvin L. French" In-Reply-To: References: <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$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 20:35 1/07/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >5. The card probably ought to be an 8x11 page, held landscape-wise, >and folded once. This give four roughtly 5x8 inch pages. Enough room, >I think. >6. Yes, I know one can edit a computer generated CC so that space can >made for one's unique system. But (a) the only CC editor of which I'm >aware is windows only, so (b) editing a CC on a Mac or L*nix platform >isn't all that easy, and (c) doing so at a game, when you've >forgotten your usual card, is impossible. AG : try printing blank WBF CCs with this editor. The spaces are quite cleverly worked out, at least for the front page. Or, if you want maximum flexibility, combine the WBF front page with the Belgian back page. I'm still looking for a system whose important parts don't adjust within this combination, and I'm quite imaginative at creating strange systems. I needed the described combination but once, for a little major- based system with intricate overcall combinations, and everything found its place. Of course, if you fill it by hand, you will need to write quite densely. Ah, yes, don't forget to change Arial into Times ; it will save about 12% space using the same character size. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 2 23:54:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62DsPu18047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:54:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62DsIt18043 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:54:19 +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, 2 Jul 2001 14:45:07 +0200 Message-ID: <040001c102f4$ca8e8c60$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:44:51 +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 f62DsLt18044 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 9:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Joe 90 > > Steve Willner wrote: > > [snip] > > >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. > > Last Sunday, I played in a Swiss Teams which used the > WBF Victory Point scale. My team-mates were > notorious for their disorganisation, habitually > violating L90B1 by arriving a quarter-hour or so > after the official starting time. So the SO > instructed the TD to fine our team 3 imps for each 7 > minutes (or part thereof) our team-mates were late. > > The TD therefore fined our side 6 imps. However, we > had won the match by such a massive margin that the > PP did not affect our 25 vp blitz. What the SO's > directive did do was give our opponents a > *procedural bonus* of 2 vp, by reducing their losing > margin. > > Question 1: Was the SO's directive legal? > > Question 2: Is any score adjustment relatively > meaningless in the first round of a > Swiss Teams scored by vps? > > IMHO, a more appropriate PP would have been to > refuse my team-mates' entry for the next Sunday > Swiss. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- Question 1 It would have been better to give a PP in VP's. On the other side, the TD erred by 'giving the IMPs to the other side'. This is incorrect. IMO, the original score should be used (e.g. 84-13) to convert to VP's for the opponents (-61 gives x VPs). The 'reduced IMP score' (78 (=84-6) - 13) to calculate the VP's for your side (+56 gives y VPs). Question 2 One could make the pairings based on VP's before penalties if one wishes. Then the penalty in VP's has the same impact whether it was given in the first match or the last. 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 Jul 3 00:45:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62Ej0r18093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:45:00 +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-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 f62Eiqt18086 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:44:53 +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 15H4ty-000EPw-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:42:24 +0000 Message-ID: <0M1zjfBpJHQ7EwDb@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:08:57 +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 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Steve Willner wrote: > >[snip] > >>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. #3 includes deterring other people as well. >>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. >Last Sunday, I played in a Swiss Teams which used the >WBF Victory Point scale. My team-mates were >notorious for their disorganisation, habitually >violating L90B1 by arriving a quarter-hour or so >after the official starting time. So the SO >instructed the TD to fine our team 3 imps for each 7 >minutes (or part thereof) our team-mates were late. > >The TD therefore fined our side 6 imps. However, we >had won the match by such a massive margin that the >PP did not affect our 25 vp blitz. What the SO's >directive did do was give our opponents a >*procedural bonus* of 2 vp, by reducing their losing >margin. > >Question 1: Was the SO's directive legal? The directive is certainly legal, and reasonable. If your team-mates do this habitually, I would expect nothing less. But a PP does not accrue to the opponents, so it was applied wrong - unless you have described it wrong. If you lost boards, then that is different. They would of course be scored as 3 imps to your opponents. This is automatic under L12C1, and needs no directive of any sort. >Question 2: Is any score adjustment relatively > meaningless in the first round of a > Swiss Teams scored by vps? All scores are meaningless in the first round of an Australian Swiss event because of the method of allocating them on the anti-Swiss principle. >IMHO, a more appropriate PP would have been to >refuse my team-mates' entry for the next Sunday >Swiss. PPs basically should develop until they work. I think refusing entry should be some time off: 1 VP per minute of lateness seems suitable now, defining lateness as commencing five minutes *before* the published starting time. -- 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 Jul 3 00:45:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62Eivq18092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:44:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62Eiot18084 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:44:50 +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 15H4ty-000EPv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:42:23 +0000 Message-ID: <+cdxnRBIAHQ7EwiG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:58:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> <00a501c102ba$697da8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00a501c102ba$697da8a0$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: "Zvi Shilon" >> According to L20F1, how do you find out what a double is, when it >is not >> alerted? >You say something like, "Would you please explain your side's >bidding up to this point?" > >L20F1 was changed from "complete explanation of any call made by an >opponent" to "complete explanation of the opponents' auction" in >1987. The reason is pretty obvious: Players were doing things like >asking about a 3C bid when holding clubs. Although that was illegal, >the player could argue that he was just going by the Laws. The >change was made to discourage this sort of thing. I know I have explained before, so please skip if you know my arguments, but I should explain why Marv is wrong. He quotes part but not all of L20F1. The bit he ignores is '(questions may be asked about calls actually made, or about relevant calls available but not made)' So L20F1 allows questions about calls that are made. >Now, when there have been only two calls by a side, e.g., 1S and >double, asking for an explanation of the auction is a pretty >transparent request to know the meaning of the double. Questioning >the double would therefore be harmless. Besides, such a question is >unlikely to transmit UI. Nevertheless, I think it is best to follow >the formula prescribed by L20F1 for all questioning. It doesn't seem >right that players should pick and choose the conditions under which >violating L20F1 would be acceptable. No, certainly not. >Of course an "explanation of the auction" is not a review of the >auction. Only those calls that are the subject of a special >partnership agreement need be explained (see L75C), and calls >already explained need not be explained again. Look, Marv, to quote someone "It doesn't seem right that players should pick and choose the conditions under which violating L20F1 would be acceptable." Now, if your reading of L20F1 was right, then it certainly does not say anything about not explaining some of the calls. You have to take a position: either L20F1 only allows you to ask about the whole auction, or it doesn't. I believe it doesn't: you seem to believe it does when you think so, and doesn't when you think so. > I would like to >exclude calls whose meaning is plainly shown on the CC. That, of course, is a different argument of yours, which would be a serious attempt to reduce Full disclosure. Fortunately, no-one is doing that. >As was true prior to 1987, it is still true that such questioning >may lead to a violation of L16A, as the footnote to L20F1 points >out. Exactly, and this is why very few people worry about making L20F1 unworkable as you 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 Tue Jul 3 01:53:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62FnBp19232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:49:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin3.email.bigpond.com (juicer24.bigpond.com [139.134.6.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62Fmxt19174 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:49:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.56]) by mailin3.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GFUS3N00.JZP for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:52:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-218.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.218]) by mail3.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 5/1809119); 03 Jul 2001 01:47:20 Message-ID: <011801c1030d$aba41540$dae336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:42:58 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman of Australia wrote: >I would be interested in how a procedure could be put >in place so that the appropriate laws, considerations >are at the fingertips of the appeals committee. Any ideas? It can be a bit confusing here in Australia where, according to recent minutes of the ABF Management Committee (which are available online), the WBF's CoP will have some alterations made before being adopted as Z7 Code & as part of the ABF Tournament Regulations. Apparently the CoP has some "potential conflicts with the ABF Appeals Regulations".** My point is that Peter and I live in a country/Zone where appeals are often approached differently from the rest of the world, which can create problems which the rest of the world doesn't have. What to do, especially in those cases where the Director doesn't know the rules either? Better training of Directors, and more widespread training of potential Appeals Committee members, is the obvious but probably impractical answer in a country which lacks the funds/staff for such things. Or "delay the result of the congress until the next day" - also probably impractical. >[I have sat on many appeals committees with fine/expert players >who wanted to make rulings that had no basis in law but met their >own standard of fair (until the law(s) was pointed out to them by >me - and I am no expert)] . Same here, replacing "many" by 'some' in my case. > S- 985 > H- QJ10843 > D- 74 > C- 65 > >S- A103 S- KQ42 >H- AK652 H- 97 >D- J32 D- Q1086 >C- AQ C- J32 > > S- J76 > H- void > D- AK95 > C- K109874 > > 2H, pass, pass, 2NT > pass, 3C, X, 3NT > all pass > > The bidding: > > West North East South > -- 2H Pass Pass > 2NT Pass 3C Dble > 3NT All pass >Lead: C6 > >Play: >T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* >Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. >[Hesitation agreed] >T2: D2, 4, Q, K > >Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point >and declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts >and 2 clubs. > >The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. > >EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether >to win the CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a >spade) but in the end decided to win the CQ. The appeals >committee agreed this was a valid bridge reason for the >hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. > >Comments appreciated. Firstly, might declarer have tanked if he had CAQ5? Yes indeed, because if the clubs were five two and the diamond honours split, ducking with that holding could be good play. Is South's switch sufficiently bad play to deny redress? Not in my opinion, as it could even be the right play. Is West entitled to this unusual tank about whether to win CQ or CA? I think such tanks have to be allowed. Thus the score stands. If he had have held CAK instead of CAQ and he had have said that he was wondering which of the ace or king was more deceptive, then that would be a tougher decision, I think. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 01:57:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62Fsf521158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:54:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62FsTt21092 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h138.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.138]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f62FqRK11718 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:52:27 +0400 Message-ID: <3B408B3C.ABCEE24A@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:54:53 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> <00a501c102ba$697da8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <+cdxnRBIAHQ7EwiG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Sorry for too long post - but it is compensated by my long silent period:) Fearghal O'Boyle started very interesting and useful discussion. For the beginning let's re-think the relationship between procedure and UI: our bridge authorities made their best for decreasing the probability of creating and/or transferring the UI by making the procedure more complex (screens, bidding-boxes, alert- and stop-procedures etc.). And players adopted all these complexity - not at once, but nevertheless. The only problem where simplicity of procedure entirely overrode the UI was the problem of alerting the Double┘ Let's start not with what SOs adopted the WBF position but with bridge arguments. I should underline that first of all I care for club level - not for world Championships. Peter Gill, Volter R. Walther, Sergey Litvak supported the WBF position (in accordance with their national SOs). Meanwhile Volker R. Walther wrote: "It's quite common, that there are no or incomplete CC's at club events." I wonder if there is at least one club in Russia, where at least one pair has at least one copy of their CC during club tourney. Am I right, Sergey?? Almost the same happens even at our national pair tournaments and championships. So - when Peter Gill wrote: "The front page of the ABF Convention Card includes space for Pre Alerts: Calls that may have Unexpected Meaning/s or require Special Defense. Pairs that play Penalty Doubles of overcalls are expected to include such doubles here." - it might work, but not in Russia, neither in Germany, USA (Marv noted that "ACBL TDs refuse to enforce the regulation that requires a pair's two convention cards to be on the table, completed and legible") nor - I can imagine - in lot of clubs in lots of countries. Nobody can be forced to ask the meaning every Double (neither every alerted bid). Indeed, I saw that Steve Wilner promised to do so - but I guess it was a kind of joke. I guess that in reality a most of club players will ask only when they do need the meaning of Double - for making their decision in current auction. They will never ask for theoretical reason only. Anne Jones wrote: "So the question is UI to your partner, but that is not a problem, the problem arises when the answer is such that you take action you would not have taken if the answer had been different. Now the opps have AI that may not be beneficial to your side." Steve Willner wrote: "Could I ask regardless of my hand? Or would I be in trouble if I ask and pass and happen to hold a balanced 10-count?" Never mind, problem arise when a player asks and then - passes. And it is only the very beginning of the process: this situation transforms onto real problem for his PARTNER. Cause this partner now is a subject of L16A and L73F1: he cannot chose "from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another" by partner's action. I strongly disagree with Matthias Berghaus, when he wrote that transmitted UI in such a cases "will be less likely to affect the result of the board." Two examples: 1. Your hold something like: x - Kxxx - A1098x - QJx, pairs, game all. RHO opened 1Spade, you overcalled 2Diamonds, LHO doubled. Your partner asked, received answer "negative", and passed. LHO in-expectedly also passed (penalty). What is the suggested LA? That partner MIGHT make another call in case of "penalty" Double: Redouble-SOS, or bid his own suit. Are you allowed to bid anything but Pass now? 2Hearts? Or Redouble-SOS? Because WITHOUT partner's question it may be quite reasonable doing (say: 10% for 2Diamonds doubled, 0% for 2Hearts doubled but may be cost even +60% if you are lucky)┘ 2. Your hold something like: x - Kxx - AQ109x - KJ10x, pairs, game all. RHO opened 1Spade, you overcalled 2Diamonds, LHO doubled. Your partner asked, received answer "penalty", and passed. LHO in-expectedly bid 2Spades. What is the suggested LA? That partner MIGHT make another call in case of "non-penalty" meaning of the Double: Redouble (penalty), or 2NT or bid his own suit (without escaping idea). Are you allowed to bid anything but Pass now? 2Hearts? Or Double? Cause WITHOUT partner's question it may be risky but reasonable doing (in pairs)┘ But with discussed Regulations in both cases you are inexorably under pressure of above mentioned Laws (16A and 73F1). And this UI was created in these cases solely by Regulations that were made by the SO: you are limited in your bidding now. If SO had prescribed to inform meaning of these Doubles (for example - "Penalty" - "Not-penalty" as it is suggested my Marv) there would be no problems at all. Such kind of information is extremely important for player and it (IMO) should be received without any additional questions. One more remark: Sergey Litvak wrote: "We don't have any problems with it." "We use this policy of not alertng doubles for 3 or 4 years and I have not seen any appeal with this case." Matthias Berghaus wrote: "There have been no TD calls because of questions about doubles." "There never was a call for the TD because of this rule (not that I am aware of, at least)." For my opinion both these statements rather disclose a threat than inform us about positive fact: inexperienced players become to get (or even have already got) accustomed to use UI at least in such a positions and treat them as legal. There is no doubts that step by step it will influence on estimation of UI-usage in another situations. So - my opinion that Doubles/Redoubles should be alertable not only at first round of bidding (as David suggested) but at least at first and second rounds of bidding. Regards, Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 02:03:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62G0AQ23052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:00:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62G04t23024 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:00:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA00917; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 08:57:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200107021557.IAA00917@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jul 2001 02:36:33 BST." Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 08:57:44 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Fearghal O'Boyle writes > > > >The WBF has a policy of not alerting doubles. > > > >Is this a good idea for national authorities to consider adopting? > > No. After the first round, probably yes. > > But on the first round there is no reason why you should be surprised > by a double. > > Suppose you are playing in England with English methods, and English > alerting. > > Your partner opens 2H, weak, and RHO doubles. This will be a takeout > double 98% of the time, it will not be alerted, and everyone gets on > with the game. > > But you can play it to mean anything. So if it shows spades and a > longer minor, that is legal - and in England it would be alerted. > > On the first round, where most people play doubles the same, it would > be silly not to alert for the odd people who play them differently. > > After the first round doubles become homogenous, they are often ill- > defined, and are rarely played as artificial, and people would usually > ask in any doubtful situation. Not always the case . . . Here are some doubles after the first round that show something specific as opposed to the "homogeneous" kind: Support doubles: 1C pass 1H 2D X where double shows precisely 3-card heart support. Probably more popular over here than in England, where you need to double to show a strong notrump. Negative (?) double by opener: 1C pass 1D 1S X showing four hearts. This is part of Bridge World Standard, and I play it with my partners (we don't use methods where 1D tends to deny a major). How about this one? 1H pass 1S pass 4C(1) X(2) (1) Splinter (2) Let's suppose they use doubles of splinters as lead-directing for some specific suit other than the splinter suit---e.g. double of clubs asks for a diamond, double of diamonds asks for a heart, double of hearts asks for a club (when spades are trumps). I think I'd want this double alerted. Doubles that show something specific, as in the above examples, probably shouldn't be treated the same way. I agree that most of the other doubles are of a more fuzzy, "homogeneous" kind, somewhere on a continuum between "takeout" and "penalty" with names like "cooperative", "competitive", "action", "optional", "card-showing". Often, it seems that these doubles just show a hand that wants to say something but isn't sure what to say. I'm reminded of the time when someone in the Master Solvers' Club made this kind of nebulous double and called it an "action" double, prompting moderator Rubens to define an "action double" as "a competitive double that requests partner to take action by either bidding or passing." I have no problem with a rule that none of those doubles should 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 Jul 3 02:22:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62GM7200211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:22:07 +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 f62GM0t00170 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:22:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA14785 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA15568 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:20:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107021620.MAA15568@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > If he had have held CAK instead of CAQ and he had have said > that he was wondering which of the ace or king was more > deceptive, then that would be a tougher decision, I think. I have seen some commentary on L73F2 (and maybe some decisions) that in general, wondering which card is more deceptive should not be considered a "demonstrable bridge reason." That seems reasonable to me, because the opposite conclusion would make 73F2 moot whenever the culprit holds at least two cards. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 04:32:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62IVhd15024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 04:31:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62IUVt14639 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 04:31:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-232.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.232]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f62IPCc11936 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:25:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <01e501c10324$ddb4bc80$e83d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "BLML" References: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:27:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > Hi All, > > > I would be interested in BLML feedback on this appeal from a local (NSW, > Australia) congress. [I was not involved in any capacity so the facts may be > slightly different from described. Feel free to ask questions and I will try > and provide more detail if required.] > > This was a typical congress - appeals committee formed from 3 experienced > players in the event (who were not in contention), who are not experts in > the laws of bridge. I would be interested in how a procedure could be put > in place so that the appropriate laws, considerations are at the fingertips > of the appeals committee. Any ideas? > [I have sat on many appeals committees with fine/expert players who wanted > to make rulings that had no basis in law but met their own standard of fair > (until the law(s) was pointed out to them by me - and I am no expert)] > > S- 985 > H- QJ10843 > D- 74 > C- 65 > > S- A103 S- KQ42 > H- AK652 H- 97 > D- J32 D- Q1086 > C- AQ C- J32 > > S- J76 > H- void > D- AK95 > C- K109874 > > 2H, pass, pass, 2NT > pass, 3C, X, 3NT > all pass > > The bidding: > > West North East South > -- 2H Pass Pass > 2NT Pass 3C Dble > 3NT All pass > Lead: C6 > > Play: > T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* > Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. > [Hesitation agreed] > T2: D2, 4, Q, K > > Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point and > declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts and 2 clubs. > > The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. > > EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether to win the > CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a spade) but in the end > decided to win the CQ. The appeals committee agreed this was a valid bridge > reason for the hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. > > Comments appreciated. I fully agree with the AC. The defense do not get redress for false conclusions about the cause of declarer's tank. Furthermore, I don't see how the S switch could possibly have gained. 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 Tue Jul 3 05:32:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62JWRo06280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 05:32:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62JWJt06241 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 05:32:21 +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 PAA25113 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA15696 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:30:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107021930.PAA15696@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: vitold Vitold makes some excellent points. I agree that "no doubles are alertable" is going too far. David's suggestion of no doubles alertable after the first round may be better -- maybe even the best practical regulation. What I'd like is for doubles that are "really weird" to be alertable even on later rounds, but it isn't going to be easy to write regulations that define "really weird." Maybe something like showing specific length or shortness or being lead-directing or anti-lead-directing would be a start, but I don't really see how to write a sensible definition. I quite dislike Germany's (?) rule making passes non-alertable. Consider 2C (artificial, very strong)-2H-P. In my preferred methods, responder's pass promises strength (at least two controls). Do you really want that non-alertable? On the other hand, a double on the second or third round of the auction that promises general values probably shouldn't be alertable, regardless of whether it tends toward the penalty or the takeout end of the spectrum. The meaning is basically the one any reasonable player will expect with only slight shades of difference, and it will be extremely hard to write -- not to mention enforce -- rules to say that one end of the spectrum is alertable and the other end isn't. Where is the dividing line going to be? It certainly isn't easy to write alert rules that deal with all situations! One thing might be clarified: > Nobody can be forced to ask the meaning every Double (neither every alerted > bid). Indeed, I saw that Steve Wilner promised to do so - but I guess it was > a kind of joke. I guess that in reality a most of club players will ask only > when they do need the meaning of Double - for making their decision in > current auction. They will never ask for theoretical reason only. The specific situation was as responder to an opening 1NT bid with double on my right and rules that no doubles are alerted. I really will ask 100% of the time if that's the situation; no joke at all. The double is quite likely to be something artificial, and I'm quite likely to want to know what it is, so I need to ask most of the time anyway. Might as well make it 100%. In contrast, if the opening bid is one of a suit, the double is 99.99% to be takeout, so it wouldn't occur to me to ask. But it's easy to see that could lead to trouble if it's the 0.01% case. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 05:56:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62JuHp14775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 05:56:17 +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 f62JuBt14743 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 05:56:12 +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 f62JtHa25329 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e601c10330$a2a1a2a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] From rgb Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:52:53 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Linda Trent wrote: > >> > >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. > > It is at management's insistance that only the name of the DIC is reported. > Yes, I should have said that, but the question remains: why is this so? The explanation has been that rulings that are not semi-automatic are submitted to one or more other TDs, including the DIC, before becoming final. That means the original TD might end up making a ruling with which s/he disagrees, so it's unfair to put that TDs name in the casebook. However, the TD signs off on the ruling writeup, which indicates acceptance of it. TDs who don't agree with an imposed ruling should not put their names on the writeups, but should have the DIC sign. That policy would let us know who is responsible for some of the bad rulings that Rich Colker complains about. He says, in regard to Anaheim table rulings, "...not only were too many of the table rulings poor, an alarming number were illegal, incompetent, or utterly outrageous." The casebook is know for its frankness, no punches pulled. Readers would like to know who is making these bad rulings, just as we get to know which AC members are making bad decisions. And just who is "management," anyway? Certainly the ACBL TD organization should have no control over what ACs and Rich Colker do. Nor should the CEO have a say. Only the BoD has authority over the AC process. 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 Tue Jul 3 06:15:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62KFLC21465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:15:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62KFEt21427 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:15:15 +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 VAA34313 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:13:10 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:13:38 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1033B.DD10BCE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:13:37 +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 Peter Gill wrote: > If he had have held CAK instead of CAQ and he had have said > that he was wondering which of the ace or king was more > deceptive, then that would be a tougher decision, I think. Steve answered: I have seen some commentary on L73F2 (and maybe some decisions) that in general, wondering which card is more deceptive should not be considered a "demonstrable bridge reason." Agreed. Deciding whether to win with the Ace or the King from AK doubleton is not a 'demonstable bridge reason'. 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 Tue Jul 3 06:20:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62KKXR22917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:20:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62KKQt22891 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:20:27 +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 f62KJWa29891 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:19:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011101c10334$046cb3a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:17:20 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Zvi Shilon writes > >According to L20F1, how do you find out what a double is, when it is not > >alerted? > > I am glad you asked Marv this, and to save his computer a few > electrons I shall answer you. > > 1NT 2H 2S 2NT > 3C 3H 4H P > 4S P P 4NT > 5D X ? > > According to the known world [except for three members of BLML]: > > "What is the double?" > "One or four key-cards." Why do people ask such a stupid question? Is there really a need to know? > > > According to three members of BLML: > > "Please explain the auction" > "2H is natural, may be fairly weak, a second suit is unlikely unless > he is 6-4" > "2NT is an artificial game try - or better" > "3H shows a good suit, probably minimum, but not awful. He certainly > will not have a second suit of diamonds." > "Pass is forcing, seeking more information. It is somewhat > encouraging, but does not suggest a heart lead if partner is on lead." > "Pass is forcing, nothing much to say." > "4NT is Roman Key-card Blackwood." > "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz." > "One or ...." > "COME ON AT TABLE THREE: IF YOU ARE NOT FINISHED IN TWO MINUTES YOU > WILL LOSE YOUR LAST BOARD!" > ".... four key-cards." > Get the law changed if you don't like it. The WBFLC stated at Lille that asking about a particular call, while not in accordance with L20F1, is "a minor infringement of the laws [that] should not normally attract a penalty." While I prefer to follow the law as written, others may not want to do so in situations where UI damage is inconceivable. I just don't like to see an SO negate the law entirely. I know that many pros do not like this law because it "infringes" on their tendency to ask questions about a particular call for client's benefit. Since the pros seem to be running things these days, I expect that L20F1 will be changed back to pre-1987 wording on the next go-round. (Speaking only from ACBL-land experience) Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 3 06:29:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62KTla26082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:29:47 +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 f62KTet26042 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:29:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 8EFB92A52BD; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:26:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 71B102A529B for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:26:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 6857 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2001 20:26:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cibfor) (213.76.38.221) by 217.74.65.40 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2001 20:26:31 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 22:24:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Reply-To: cibor@interia.pl X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Footer: Message-Id: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> X-EMID: e9517138 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello gals'n'boys, Here is an incident that took place in this year's Vanderbilt final that didn't involve a TD but if it did it would lead to an interesting problem on which I would like your opinion It would make a little clearer to me on how far we can go with the "could have known" principle. So, dear BLMLers, let's get on with the story: Deal 28 Dealer West, North-South vulnerable J3 94 KJ9764 832 Q4 A865 QJ53 A1076 AQ105 82 J107 AK9 K10972 K83 3 Q654 Pszczola Balicki Gawrys Zmudzinski W N E S 1C* pass 1H pass 2H pass 4H pass pass pass *Polish (five card 1D) Zmudzinski led the d3 (2nd/4th). Gawrys tried dummy's dQ but Balicki won and returned the d7 for Zmudzinski to ruff. Zmudzinski returned the c4 and dummy's cJ held. Balicki's return of the middle diamond indicated that he was unwilling to give a suit preference to any particular suit. So Zmudzinski had every reason to simply return a trump instead of making that very dangerous club play that blew one of the NS trick. The fact that Zmudzinski did in fact underlead his queen was a strong indication that he had started with Kxx in hearts and now had the king doubleton; the only holding that would make a trump switch impossible at this point. So after trick three Gawrys had several clues to find the winning line: eliminate clubs and play hA and a heart endplaying Zmudzinski who would have had to underlead his sK or to give a ruff and discard. Instead declarer took the trump finesse and finished one down. Where is the "could have known" stuff here? Well, there is more to it than meets the eye. When the diamond was ruffed at trick two Gawrys looked at Balicki with surprise in his eyes (albeit he didn't say a word) clearly wondering why he failed to overcall with such a good suit. Balicki reminded him that their defense against the Polish Club was Lambda [a popular defense in Poland based on a strong pass system created by Lukasz Slawinski in the 60s: pass = 0-7PC or 8-15 balanced or 16+ any shape; others 8-15: dbl = H onesuiter, 1D = S onesuiter, 1H = 5+-4+ H+C or S+D, 1S = 5+-4+ H+D or S+C, 1NT = 5+-4+ H+S or C+D, 2C/D = C/D onesuiter, others pre-emptive - KC] so a 1D overcall would have shown spades. He failed to mention, however, that the other reason of the failure to overcall could be the lack of enough HCPs. Gawrys therefore drew a conclusion from Balicki's remark that his RHO had a hand that normally overcalls 1D over the 1C opening so he tried the trump finesse despite having some clues from the lead that the finesse was doomed to fail. After the board was over Gawrys stated that it was Balicki's remark that made him think that the trump king was onside but finally decided not to call the TD (I quote all the facts according to an interview with Cezary Balicki in the Polish "Brydz" magazine). But suppose he did; you approach the table, listen to the whole story and have to rule. Do you rule that when North said "We play Lambda over 1C" he could have known that this might accrue to his side? Do you think that East should have brought his contract home nonetheless? Just what is your ruling, sweetheart? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- O kobietach, dla kobiet... http://polki.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 07:03:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62L2XM00543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:02:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62L2Qt00503 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:02:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from eitan (ras11-p60.hrz.netvision.net.il [62.0.174.189]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA18692 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:00:28 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010702235836.008de8d0@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 23:58:36 +0300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles In-Reply-To: <00a001c102b3$30d5bd00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$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 The following extract from the minutes of the WBF Laws Committee meeting at Lille 1998 may be relevant to this discussion, and explains why so many of us otherwise law-abiding TDs ignore questions (such as "what does the double mean?") that don't involve or lead to UI. In effect we treat the illegal "marginal infringement" question like we treat the legal hesitation - if it doesn't cause UI problems we ignore it. quote Laws 20F1 and 20F2. In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' auction" in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognized that in practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of one particular call; this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances. unquote (extract copied from David Stevenson's: www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/law_llle.htm) Eitan Levy At 21:45 01/07/2001 -0700, you wrote: > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >> Marv wrote: >> >> >Besides, a fact ignored by Peter and most of the world, it is >contrary to >> >L20F1 for a player to ask what a specific call means. >> >> You know very well, Marv, that there are only two people in the >> *entire world* who care about this - and I doubt either one of us >is >> ever going to get it changed. :-) >> >Surely more than two? There are quite a few BLML subscribers who >insist that the Laws must be followed, even those we don't like. I >have been given this lecture often. Are you telling me they make >exceptions for themselves? :-) > >Marv >Marvin L. French, >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 Tue Jul 3 07:39:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62LdOp13564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:39:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62LdEt13518 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:39:15 +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 f62LcKa15484 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013301c1033f$0422d860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> <00a501c102ba$697da8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <+cdxnRBIAHQ7EwiG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3B408B3C.ABCEE24A@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:36:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "vitold" >1. Your hold something like: x - Kxxx - A1098x - QJx, pairs, game all. RHO opened 1Spade, you overcalled 2Diamonds, LHO doubled. Your partner asked, received answer "negative", and passed. LHO in-expectedly also passed (penalty). What is the suggested LA? That partner MIGHT make another call in case of "penalty" Double: Redouble-SOS, or bid his own suit. Are you allowed to bid anything but Pass now? 2Hearts? Or Redouble-SOS? Because WITHOUT partner's question it may be quite reasonable doing (say: 10% for 2Diamonds >doubled, 0% for 2Hearts doubled but may be cost even +60% if you are lucky)┘ >2. Your hold something like: x - Kxx - AQ109x - KJ10x, pairs, game all. RHO opened 1Spade, you overcalled 2Diamonds, LHO doubled. Your partner asked, received answer "penalty", and passed. LHO in-expectedly bid 2Spades. What is the suggested LA? That partner MIGHT make another call in case of "non-penalty" meaning of the Double: Redouble (penalty), or 2NT or bid his own suit (without escaping idea). Are you allowed to bid anything but Pass now? 2Hearts? Or Double? Cause WITHOUT partner's question it may be risky but reasonable doing (in pairs)┘ But with discussed Regulations in both cases you are inexorably under pressure of above mentioned Laws (16A and 73F1). And this UI was created in these cases solely by Regulations that were made by the SO: you are limited in your bidding now. If SO had prescribed to inform meaning of these Doubles (for example - "Penalty" - "Not-penalty" as it is suggested my Marv) there would be no problems at all. Such kind of information is extremely important >for player and it (IMO) should be received without any additional questions. If Alerts of doubles are dropped in general by the ACBL, they will probably solve these two problems by requiring an Alert of a penalty double, since hereabouts penalty is "unusual or unexpected." However, support doubles have the same problem, and those will probably not be Alertable. (snip of good words) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California (Why does Outlook Express occasionally refuse to put the usual quote (>) marks in my replies?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 07:39:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62LdOK13563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:39:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62LdEt13512 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:39:14 +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 f62LcJa15481 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:38:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013201c1033f$03c74ae0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B3FDA85.AB5A3CDC@isdn.net.il> <00a501c102ba$697da8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <+cdxnRBIAHQ7EwiG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:27:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > I know I have explained before, so please skip if you know my > arguments, but I should explain why Marv is wrong. He quotes part but > not all of L20F1. The bit he ignores is > > '(questions may be asked about calls actually made, or about relevant > calls available but not made)' This has been thrashed out on BLML before, with the result that the WBF LC (at Lille) made clear that L20F1 means what it says. The parenthetical part you quote is in parentheses within the major statement that says one can ask for an explanation of the auction. That is, when an opponent explains his auction, it is permissible to ask for further information about individual calls if necessary (and in peril of L16A). I guess I'd better quote this Lille WBF LC interpretation: "In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the auction" in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. However, it is recognized that in practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of a particular call, this marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a penalty but players should must be aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorized information that it entails and the relevance of Law 16 in such circumstances." David, you had this wrong in your summary of the 1997 Laws, and it is still wrong. You ought to fix it. You write: "Incidentally, has anyone ever said that you are not allowed to ask questions about individual bids? Many read L20F1 as saying so, though there has been no attempt to enforce this: the new Law makes it clear that individual questions are permitted." Grattan wrote that he was unaware of any such change to L20F1's intent. All the change did was make clear that questioning relevant calls not made was permissible, while stating the obvious (nothing new, previously true): within the context of an explanation of the auction any call's explanation may be further questioned. I believe Ton had this wrong, as did Ralph Cohen, co-chair of the ACBL LC, so getting it wrong is not a big goof. The change in the Laws from "call" to "auction" that was made in 1987 was neither noticed nor paid attention to by most of the world. Nearly everyone continued to think that individual calls could be questioned ("What did his 3C bid show?), which was made illegal in 1987 and continues to be an infringement of L20F1. > > So L20F1 allows questions about calls that are made. Yes, within the context of an explanation of the auction. > > >Now, when there have been only two calls by a side, e.g., 1S and > >double, asking for an explanation of the auction is a pretty > >transparent request to know the meaning of the double. Questioning > >the double would therefore be harmless. Besides, such a question is > >unlikely to transmit UI. Nevertheless, I think it is best to follow > >the formula prescribed by L20F1 for all questioning. It doesn't seem > >right that players should pick and choose the conditions under which > >violating L20F1 would be acceptable. > > No, certainly not. > > >Of course an "explanation of the auction" is not a review of the > >auction. Only those calls that are the subject of a special > >partnership agreement need be explained (see L75C), and calls > >already explained need not be explained again. > > Look, Marv, to quote someone "It doesn't seem right that players > should pick and choose the conditions under which violating L20F1 would > be acceptable." Now, if your reading of L20F1 was right, then it > certainly does not say anything about not explaining some of the calls. L75C says that the meanings of calls that come from general knowledge and experience, not from a special partnership agreement, need not be disclosed. [Why is it that TDs in general refuse to acknowledge this? Is it because pros want their ignorant clients to have *every* call explained? I have noticed that ACBL regulations disliked by pros in general are not enforced. We even have a pro as president right now (but I definitely am not implying any such attitude on the part of Jim Kirkham!). It is management's job to enforce regulations established by the BoD. That this isn't being done makes me wonder if it is because of pro influence.] > You have to take a position: either L20F1 only allows you to ask about > the whole auction, or it doesn't. I believe it doesn't: you seem to > believe it does when you think so, and doesn't when you think so. Okay, include calls about which there is no special partnership agreement: "We have no special partnership agreements about the calls we haven't explained." That is an adequate explanation of that part of the auction. > > > I would like to > >exclude calls whose meaning is plainly shown on the CC. > > That, of course, is a different argument of yours, which would be a > serious attempt to reduce Full disclosure. Fortunately, no-one is doing > that. I was thinking of saving time, as surely calls explained adequately and clearly on the CC would already be known to an opponent. Since calls that are part of a special partnership agreement would probably already have been explained via the Alert (or Announcement, in ACBL-land) process, those explanations need be repeated only on request. An explanation of the auction is not a review of the auction. Its intent is to disclose things that the opponents could not be expected to know. Otherwise defenders could get an illegal review of the auction by asking for an explanation of the auction (per L20F2) during the play. > >As was true prior to 1987, it is still true that such questioning > >may lead to a violation of L16A, as the footnote to L20F1 points > >out. > > Exactly, and this is why very few people worry about making L20F1 > unworkable as you wish it to be. > It works well for me. I have never had a problem when I word a request in a tactful way: "Would you tell me everything that I might not know about your bidding so far?" Something like that. "Please explain your auction" is of course unintelligible to most B & C players. On the other hand, "pro questions" about individual calls (for clients' benefit) have never been penalized at my table. Never. They come from a minority, I hasten to say. The majority of pros seem to be quite ethical. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 3 07:42:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62Lgp914765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:42:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62Lgit14725 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:42:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA03944 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:40:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15927 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 17:40:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107022140.RAA15927@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Konrad Ciborowski > When the diamond was ruffed at trick two Gawrys > looked at Balicki with surprise in his eyes (albeit he didn't say a word) > clearly wondering why he failed to overcall with such a good suit. > Balicki reminded him that their defense against the Polish Club was > Lambda [a popular defense in Poland based on a strong > pass system created by Lukasz Slawinski in the 60s: pass = 0-7PC or > 8-15 balanced or 16+ any shape; others 8-15: dbl = H onesuiter, > 1D = S onesuiter, 1H = 5+-4+ H+C or S+D, 1S = 5+-4+ H+D or S+C, > 1NT = 5+-4+ H+S or C+D, 2C/D = C/D onesuiter, others pre-emptive - KC] so > a 1D overcall would have shown spades. Was that last bit, "1D would have shown spades," part of Balicki's answer? If you take the look of surprise as an implied question about methods, then we just have a boring old MI case. Balicki's answer was either adequate or not, and once the facts are in and bridge judgments made, we all know how to rule. If Gawrys' look of surprise was not a question about methods, then Balicki's statement is a gratuitous remark, and L73F2 might well apply. I'd want to hear from Polish experts, but I would have thought that the inability to make a weak jump overcall in a minor would be a well known feature of Lambda. If so, a general remark "We're playing Lambda," would be expected to help Gawrys, not hurt him. On the other hand, "I couldn't bid 1D because that would show spades," is clearly deceptive. It seems to me that the ruling depends on the exact facts and on your bridge judgment of the significance of the look of surprise. This is a good example of a case that really needs top experts to decide. Critical factors are the interpretation of non-verbal messages and of what knowledge a fellow expert can be expected to possess. It is easy to state the principles but much harder to apply them. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 07:59:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62LxQk20488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:59:26 +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 f62LxJt20452 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:59:20 +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 f62LwPa19206 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <014c01c10341$d1c21680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107021620.MAA15568@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:46:35 -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: "Steve Willner" > From: "Peter Gill": > > If he had have held CAK instead of CAQ and he had have said > > that he was wondering which of the ace or king was more > > deceptive, then that would be a tougher decision, I think. > > I have seen some commentary on L73F2 (and maybe some decisions) that in > general, wondering which card is more deceptive should not be > considered a "demonstrable bridge reason." That seems reasonable to > me, because the opposite conclusion would make 73F2 moot whenever the > culprit holds at least two cards. One frequently sees a declarer think quite a while (unnecessarily) before playing dummy's ace from AQx, while holding the king in hand. This is surely subject to L73F2 (tempo), but is never penalized in my experience, even when it causes an opponent to go wrong. But what should a declarer do if s/he can't determine immediately whether to win in hand or in dummy? Since that is a bridge reason for slow tempo, there is no need to say "I had no problem" after playing the ace (or the queen). I say it anyway, for reputation's sake. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 3 08:09:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62M9To23930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:09:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62M9Nt23897 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:09:24 +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 f62M8Ta21647 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <014f01c10343$3887ca80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008401c1013a$1489f140$d3d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001201c10189$f36f75c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.5.32.20010702235836.008de8d0@mail.netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:58:10 -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: "Eitan Levy" writes: > The following extract from the minutes of the WBF Laws Committee meeting at > Lille 1998 may be relevant to this discussion, and explains why so many of > us otherwise law-abiding TDs ignore questions (such as "what does the > double mean?") that don't involve or lead to UI. In effect we treat the > illegal "marginal infringement" question like we treat the legal hesitation > - if it doesn't cause UI problems we ignore it. Bad analogy. Hesitations are never illegal. Questioning an indvidual call is illegal. > quote > Laws 20F1 and 20F2. > In relation to the phrase "a full explanation of the opponents' > auction" in Laws 20F1 and 20F2, it > was agreed this refers to an explanation of the whole auction. > However, it is recognized that in > practical play players would frequently ask about the meaning of one > particular call; this > marginal infringement of the laws should not normally attract a > penalty but players must be > aware of the increased risk of the creation of unauthorised > information that it entails and the > relevance of Law 16 to such circumstances. > unquote I don't know what business the LC has in determining whether breaking a law is "a marginal infringement" or not. That is for SOs to decide. In this part of the world questioning individual calls for doubtful reasons is both common and usually unpunished. We have a serious problem here, and I don't like the LC's saying that the problem is not serious. Marginal or not, it is an infringement. Responsible players will not deliberately infringe a law. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 3 08:46:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62MkEu06777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:46:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62Mk7t06755 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:46:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h38.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.38]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f62Mi8430467 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:44:08 +0400 Message-ID: <3B40EBBB.C409E228@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:46:35 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) For my opinion - there is quite more important problem that even was not noticed: highly artificial Pass of Balicky WAS NOT ALERTED. And opponents made no remarks on that case... Both sides were of world expert level. Are we already incurable? Or have we a chance? Regards, Vitold Konrad Ciborowski пишет: > Balicki reminded him that their defense against the Polish Club was > Lambda [a popular defense in Poland based on a strong > pass system created by Lukasz Slawinski in the 60s: pass = 0-7PC or > 8-15 balanced or 16+ any shape -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 08:54:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62MsCw09638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:54:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62Ms5t09597 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:54:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h38.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.38]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f62Mq6431108 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:52:06 +0400 Message-ID: <3B40ED99.B20384B0@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:54:33 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <200107021930.PAA15696@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Steve Willner wrote: > The specific situation was as responder to an opening 1NT bid with > double on my right and rules that no doubles are alerted. I really > will ask 100% of the time if that's the situation; no joke at all. The > double is quite likely to be something artificial, and I'm quite likely > to want to know what it is, so I need to ask most of the time anyway. > Might as well make it 100%. > Even when your hand is something like 3-3-3-4, 3-4 points? And what is the aim of your asking? Will explanation influence on your action? If you are going to pass anyway - do not you afraid that somebody (Steve, with my full respect - pure theoretical question, nothing personal!) may say that your question was for your partner awaking? Regards, Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 09:15:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62NF2N16922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:15:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62NEtt16881 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:14:56 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 279B52A5228; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:12:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 111C72A5216 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 01:12:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 16441 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2001 23:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cibfor) (213.76.40.225) by 217.74.65.40 with SMTP; 2 Jul 2001 23:12:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:11:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Reply-To: cibor@interia.pl X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Footer: Message-Id: <20010702231255.111C72A5216@nyx.poczta.fm> X-EMID: b6f57138 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 2001-07-02 18:40:46, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Konrad Ciborowski >> When the diamond was ruffed at trick two Gawrys >> looked at Balicki with surprise in his eyes (albeit he didn't say a word) >> clearly wondering why he failed to overcall with such a good suit. > >> Balicki reminded him that their defense against the Polish Club was >> Lambda [a popular defense in Poland based on a strong >> pass system created by Lukasz Slawinski in the 60s: pass = 0-7PC or >> 8-15 balanced or 16+ any shape; others 8-15: dbl = H onesuiter, >> 1D = S onesuiter, 1H = 5+-4+ H+C or S+D, 1S = 5+-4+ H+D or S+C, >> 1NT = 5+-4+ H+S or C+D, 2C/D = C/D onesuiter, others pre-emptive - KC] so >> a 1D overcall would have shown spades. > >Was that last bit, "1D would have shown spades," part of Balicki's >answer? I don't know. Balicki says in the interview: "I reminded him that we play Lambda over 1C so 1D would show spades". It isn't clear from the context whether "1D would show spades" was part of his answer at the table or this is just the explanation he added for the purpose of less experienced "Brydz" readers at the time when he was interviewed. >I'd want to hear from Polish experts, but I would have thought >that the inability to make a weak jump overcall in a minor would be a >well known feature of Lambda. It is a well known feature of *any* defense played by *any* Polish pair. It would be extremely difficult to find a Polish pair playing a 2D intervention over Polish 1C as a natural weak jump overcall. I don't think I have ever faced such a pair in my life. Even the pairs who prefer a natural defense against 1C with 1D overcall being natural use the 2D overcall as artificial. The majority plays it as Wilkosz; others prefer mini-multi (weak two in either major); this is usually consistent with the meaning of their 2D opening bid. In Poland a natural 2D opener (weak two) as well as a natural weak jump overcall of 2D requires an alert! If you find a Polish pair playing a 2D overcall of a 1C opening as weak and natural it must be in some tournament abroad due to system restrictions; this doesn't apply here as any artificial defense against the Polish 1C is allowed. 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 Tue Jul 3 09:25:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62NPbP20480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:25:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62NPVt20449 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:25:31 +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 TAA06318 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA16083 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:23:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107022323.TAA16083@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: vitold > > The specific situation was as responder to an opening 1NT bid with > > double on my right and rules that no doubles are alerted. I really > > will ask 100% of the time if that's the situation; no joke at all. The > > double is quite likely to be something artificial, and I'm quite likely > > to want to know what it is, so I need to ask most of the time anyway. > > Might as well make it 100%. > > > > Even when your hand is something like 3-3-3-4, 3-4 points? Hi, Vitold. Yes, _especially_ in that case. If the double is for penalty, I will almost certainly bid 2C to escape. It may not work out, but my judgment (perhaps wrong!) is that the odds are better. The problem hand is balanced 7-10 or so (opposite a 12-14 1NT), where I won't likely be escaping or redoubling. So in this case, I am not likely to need the answer right away. Even then, though, if the double is something sufficiently weird, I might want to do something, so it is far from crazy to ask. (Suppose it's a penalty double based on a solid suit?) > do not you afraid that somebody (Steve, with my full respect - pure > theoretical question, nothing personal!) may say that your question was for your > partner awaking? Perhaps someone will say that, but if I really do ask 100% of the time, my conscience is clear. I am asking because I often need to know and want to avoid making UI available. And anyway, what would I be waking partner up to? That 1NT was doubled? But he can see the red card just as well as I can. (Probably better, as I get older.) I think the real problem occurs if asking or not asking depends on the hand I happen to hold. Sorry, Vitold, but I just don't see the problem. Perhaps I'm missing the point. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 09:26:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62NQ2R20621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:26:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f62NPut20586 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA45391 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:23:52 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:24:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10356.81BB6FA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:24:21 +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 Is there anyway we can allow players to ask about an alerted call without hanging partner? This is a catch 22 situation for most players: If they don't ask they may lose the protection of the TD and if they do ask they will lose their good score if partner does something brilliant. 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 Tue Jul 3 09:41:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f62NfSG25952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:41:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f62NfMt25922 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:41:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10631; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:39:17 -0700 Message-Id: <200107022339.QAA10631@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Jul 2001 22:24:58 BST." <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 16:39:17 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Hello gals'n'boys, > > Here is an incident that took place in this year's Vanderbilt final > that didn't involve a TD but if it did it would lead to an interesting > problem on which I would like your opinion It would make a little clearer > to me on how far we can go with the "could have known" principle. > So, dear BLMLers, let's get on with the story: > > Deal 28 > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable > > J3 > 94 > KJ9764 > 832 > Q4 A865 > QJ53 A1076 > AQ105 82 > J107 AK9 > K10972 > K83 > 3 > Q654 > > Pszczola Balicki Gawrys Zmudzinski > W N E S > 1C* pass 1H pass > 2H pass 4H pass > pass pass > > *Polish (five card 1D) This situation raises a question that has perplexed me for some time, and I'm sure has been a source of consternation to other bridge players as well: Just how the heck do you pronounce "Pszczola"? Well, somebody had to ask. -- thanks, Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 11:32:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f631Vgq21443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:31:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f631VXt21439 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:31:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15HF14-000HUv-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:30:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 02:03:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> <200107022339.QAA10631@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200107022339.QAA10631@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >This situation raises a question that has perplexed me for some time, >and I'm sure has been a source of consternation to other bridge >players as well: Just how the heck do you pronounce "Pszczola"? Pepsi-cola? Don't you have it in the USA 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 Tue Jul 3 15:05:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6354he10204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:04:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6354Rt10114 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:04:27 +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 f6353Ma07029 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:03:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01aa01c1037d$20e41b60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107021930.PAA15696@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3B40ED99.B20384B0@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:51:26 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "vitold" > Steve Willner wrote: > > > The specific situation was as responder to an opening 1NT bid with > > double on my right and rules that no doubles are alerted. I really > > will ask 100% of the time if that's the situation; no joke at all. The > > double is quite likely to be something artificial, and I'm quite likely > > to want to know what it is, so I need to ask most of the time anyway. > > Might as well make it 100%. > > > > Even when your hand is something like 3-3-3-4, 3-4 points? And what is the aim of > your asking? Will explanation influence on your action? If you are going to pass > anyway - do not you afraid that somebody (Steve, with my full respect - pure > theoretical question, nothing personal!) may say that your question was for your > partner awaking? Vitold has put his finger on the basic problem with questioning calls. If you always ask when you know the answer, or don't need to know, then asking seems like a "pro question," done for partner's benefit. After all, opponents and TDs don't know that you ask 100% of the time. If you ask only when you need to know, that is too much UI to partner and too much AI to opponents. These considerations make it necessary to minimize the questioning of individual calls. A well-designed CC and intelligent Alert/Announcement regulations (including pre-Alerts), if followed, can go a long way toward this end. At the recent Las Vegas regional we played seven sessions of open pair events and I don't recall having to ask for any explanations the whole time. The CCs and Alert explanations told me everything I needed to know. Opponents, of course, were questioning half the calls we made: "Drury?" "No" "Bergen?" "No" "Jacoby?" "No" and almost always the one I hate: "Your leads and carding are...?" Answer: "...complex, better look at our card." Not quite right, because I have printed STANDARD with a huge font under "Defensive Carding." Not big enough, I guess. At the last NABC, systems and conventions encountered were more complex, but I never had to do more than ask for an explanation of the opposing auction at a legal time after the auction was over. We can criticize the ACBL CC and Alert Procedure, but they seem to do the job pretty well, at least when players follow regulations concerning them. Incidentally, L20F2 explicitly allows declarer to question individual calls, obviously okay when partner is out of the picture. Those who think this is allowed by L20F1 might want to explain why the two laws use different words. Marv Marvin L. French, 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 Tue Jul 3 15:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f635Dhd13344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:13:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta04.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f635Dbt13313 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:13:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [210.84.80.10] by mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010703051139.XAJP12944.mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au@[210.84.80.10]> for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:11:39 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20010703150811.00695b3c@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:08:11 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: [BLML] UI or AI? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This bidding sequence occurred at a recent congress, using written bidding, in an uncontested auction North South 1C 1H 2C 2S. South now almost immediately crossed out her 2S bid and changed the bid to 3H. North, holding a small doubleton spade, bid 3NT, makinmg 9 tricks for NS +400. Now, and not until now, the Director was called (by North!) who asked whether the 2S bid was AI. The Director ruled it was UI, and adjusted the score. Much as one would like to agree, I can't find a Law which supports this decision. Law 16C, the obvious reference, starts by saying 'A call or play may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side after an oppnent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an infraction...'. This was not the situation here. Law 25B (delayed or purposeful correction) says 'the substituted call may be accepted at the option of offender's LHO; then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without penalty', but says nothing about AI or UI. NS were reasonably experienced, EW less so. Both pairs were members of a club where a common attitude is that players calling the Director are just troublemakers! I would have had to reluctantly concede that the 2S bid was AI. One couldn't even penalise NS for a Law 9 breach because attention had not been drawn to the infraction! Perhaps we could adjust the score under 72B ('could have known'). Opinions 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 Jul 3 15:14:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f635EU913597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f635EPt13573 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:14:25 +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 f635DOa08865; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01bb01c1037e$87916560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C10356.81BB6FA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:07:11 -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" > > Is there anyway we can allow players to ask about an alerted call without hanging partner? > > This is a catch 22 situation for most players: If they don't ask they may lose the protection of the TD and > if they do ask they will lose their good score if partner does something brilliant. > Unlike the questioning of unAlerted calls, asking for an explanation of an Alerted call all the time is pretty well accepted in ACBL-land and is never suspected as having an underhanded purpose. My partnerships do so, but we may fail to inquire when we suspect the opponents don't know what they're doing and the explanation might help their side. Actually, we prefer to look at the opposing CC when there is an Alert to find the answer there, which usually eliminates the need for questioning. When we do that, the Alerter will often "Announce" the meaning to be helpful. Hey, if I wanted you to tell me that I wouldn't be looking at the convention card. (Not actually spoken, of course). If the meaning of all doubles could be on the CC (for some there wouldn't be room), I would not mind the non-Alerting of doubles at all. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 3 16:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6364n501225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:04:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6364Yt01144 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:04:35 +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 f6363Za24039 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:03:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01e501c10385$87088220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:54:46 -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 Alan le Bendig, ACBL National Director and recent addition to the WBF Executive Committee (hope that's right) has ownership (maybe partial, I don't know) in a Los Angeles bridge club, the Bennington. He has written the following for his customers, which has been blessed by ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss: ####### While I have serious disagreements about the "rights" of a club to make certain changes in the Laws or "rules" of our game, I do recognize the concerns that are being raised. I have heard some potential scenarios whereby a club makes a totally silly change in the Laws such as declaring that hearts now outrank spades. While I firmly believe a club should have that right, I also think it is crystal clear that the marketplace will prohibit any club from changing the game in such a manner. That club would quickly find they had no customers. Thanks to some wording assistance from Gary, we have modified the wording of our "Don't ask" policy. While some of you may still find this distasteful, you will have to agree that it is totally "legal." I find it a little surprising that some are so alarmed at an effort being made to bring this whole issue back to what the Board originally intended. This was one of the main purposes in instituting this announcement. These changes answer all of our concerns and make no changes in what we originally intended. Our restated policy is included below: =================================================== AFTER A 1 NT OPENING BID... After a 1NT opening bid, any inquiry as to range by the RHO of the NT opener will receive a 1/4 board procedural penalty. If there has been no range announcement, a player must assume that the range is within the 15-18 HCP range. Therefore, any subsequent inquiry about the range of the 1 NT is deemed to be a repeat question that has already been answered by the lack of an announcement. We will therefore treat this as obstructing the game. We do not accept the fact that there is a significant difference between 15-17, 15-18 or 16-18 that will affect any decision that needs to be made at this point. Any later inquiry is totally appropriate and does not present a problem. This penalty will not be applied to a player who is not familiar with our policy. A warning would be issued in that case and a penalty applied to any subsequent violations of this policy. [Opponents may want to know more than the point range, such as what responses might be expected - mlf] A player has the right to examine a convention card when it his or her turn to call. If a player chooses to examine the convention card after a 1NT opening bid and then takes no immediate action, the directors will address this issue as one where unauthorized information has been made available. The director will be very liberal in judging that this unauthorized information (looking at the card) may have demonstrably suggested an action to partner. If it is judged that there was a logical alternative to the action taken by partner, the director may assign an adjusted score. ["Very liberal" here means very strict, I believe - mlf] If it so happens that the 1 NT was weak and there was no announcement, the director will be very liberal in assigning an adjusted score because of the misinformation (the failure to announce). [ditto - mlf] Alan ######## I understand Alan's intention here, which is to avoid unnecessary UI during the bidding. However, some opponents like to look at the convention card for reasons other than seeing the 1NT HCP range, e.g., whether they have "systems on" over interference, or often open with a five-card major (one of the check boxes). Are we likely to be on lead because there are lots of transfers? Better start thinking about that. And so forth. I can't see that a glance at the CC has inherent UI problems. What does BLML think? Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 16:52:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f636q6Q18130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:52:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f636q0t18102 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:52:00 +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 QAA03901 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:56:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:40:40 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:46:38 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/07/2001 04:44:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] >I'm reminded of the time when someone in the Master >Solvers' Club made this kind of nebulous double and >called it an "action" double, prompting moderator >Rubens to define an "action double" as "a >competitive double that requests partner to take >action by either bidding or passing." My two-pronged extension of Rubens' definition is: "An action double is for penalties if quick, and for takeout if slow." 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 Jul 3 17:27:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f637Qhi00396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:26:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f637Qct00365 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:26:38 +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 RAA06950 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:30:57 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 03 Jul 2001 17:15:19 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:21:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/07/2001 05:19:29 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This hand occurred at the top table, in the final match of a Sydney Swiss teams last Sunday: > S- 985 > H- QJ10843 > D- 74 > C- 65 > >S- A103 S- KQ42 >H- AK652 H- 97 >D- J32 D- Q1086 >C- AQ C- J32 > > S- J76 > H- void > D- AK95 > C- K109874 > > The bidding: > > West North East South > -- 2H Pass Pass > 2NT Pass 3C Dble > 3NT All pass >Lead: C6 > >Play: >T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* >Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. >[Hesitation agreed] >T2: D2, 4, Q, K > >Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point >and declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts >and 2 clubs. > >The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. > >EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether >to win the CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a >spade) but in the end decided to win the CQ. The appeals >committee agreed this was a valid bridge reason for the >hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. I also played in this event, but had finished nowhere, so the TD asked my disinterested advice on what was an appropriate ruling. West's rationale for a hesitation which could help his side reminded me of a classic Edgar Kaplan comment, (in his BW series of articles on Appeals Committees) "If you believe that, he will tell you another." It is obvious that declarer has two stoppers whether the CA or CQ wins the first trick. But there is no valid bridge advantage in playing CA first, since South could later duck the CQ. And if West thought that South would misdefend, creating an entry with the CJ for a possible later finesse against the SJ, then why was the routine CQ card still played sloooowly at Trick One? So my advice to the TD was that there had been an obvious infraction of L73F2. 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 Jul 3 17:50:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f637nJi08443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:49:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f637n5t08360 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:49:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 5EB7F2A568F; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:46:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 910FE2A5688 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:46:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18063 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2001 07:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by 217.74.65.40 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2001 07:46:36 -0000 Message-ID: <3B4177BD.3060009@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:43:57 +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] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final References: <200107022339.QAA10631@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: be2ceacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > This situation raises a question that has perplexed me for some time, > and I'm sure has been a source of consternation to other bridge > players as well: Just how the heck do you pronounce "Pszczola"? > > Well, somebody had to ask. > Oh, my. OK, let's try: sz - this pair of letters in Polish is pronounced in more or less the same way as "sh" in English cz - this is pronounced as "ch" in English l - this letter is not "l" as the matter of fact "?" (you have to change to ISO-2 coding to see it); which is pronounced similarly as "w" in English So here we go, fasten your seat belts, insure your jaws before you try: P sh ch o w a Alternatively you can take some easier course: "pszczola" in Polish means "bee" and "kwiecien" means "April". April - Bee is much easier to pronounce for the rest of the world, I guess :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- Szperasz po Internecie? Zostan Tropicielem! Wytrop sobie nagrody: http://tropiciel.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 18:17:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f638H6L18232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:17:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com (juicer35.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f638H1t18209 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:17:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.51]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GFW1UH00.6HB for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:20:41 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-132.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.132]) by mail7.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 15/2312633); 03 Jul 2001 18:15:24 Message-ID: <019001c10397$b36d14e0$84e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:11:02 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski of Krakow, Poland wrote: > Here is an incident that took place in this year's Vanderbilt final >that didn't involve a TD but if it did it would lead to an interesting >problem on which I would like your opinion It would make a little >clearer to me on how far we can go with the "could have known" >principle. > >Deal 28 >Dealer West, North-South vulnerable > > J3 > 94 > KJ9764 > 832 >Q4 A865 >QJ53 A1076 >AQ105 82 >J107 AK9 > K10972 > K83 > 3 > Q654 > >Pszczola Balicki Gawrys Zmudzinski > W N E S > 1C* pass 1H pass > 2H pass 4H pass > pass pass > >*Polish (five card 1D) > > Zmudzinski led the d3 (2nd/4th). Gawrys tried dummy's dQ but >Balicki won and returned the d7 for Zmudzinski to ruff. Zmudzinski >returned the c4 and dummy's cJ held. > Balicki's return of the middle diamond indicated that he was >unwilling to give a suit preference to any particular suit. So >Zmudzinski had every reason to simply return a trump instead of >making that very dangerous club play that blew one of the NS trick. >The fact that Zmudzinski did in fact underlead his queen was a >strong indication that he had started with Kxx in hearts and now >had the king doubleton; the only holding that would make a trump >switch impossible at this point. > So after trick three Gawrys had several clues to find the winning >line: eliminate clubs and play hA and a heart endplaying >Zmudzinski who would have had to underlead his sK or to give >a ruff and discard. Instead declarer took the trump finesse and >finished one down. > Where is the "could have known" stuff here? Well, there is more >to it than meets the eye. When the diamond was ruffed at trick >two Gawrys looked at Balicki with surprise in his eyes (albeit he >didn't say a word) >clearly wondering why he failed to overcall with such a good suit. >Balicki reminded him that their defense against the Polish Club >was Lambda [a popular defense in Poland based on a strong >pass system created by Lukasz Slawinski in the 60s: pass = >0-7PC or 8-15 balanced or 16+ any shape; others 8-15: dbl = H >onesuiter, 1D = S onesuiter, 1H = 5+-4+ H+C or S+D, 1S = 5+-4+ >H+D or S+C, 1NT = 5+-4+ H+S or C+D, 2C/D = C/D onesuiter, >others pre-emptive - KC] so a 1D overcall would have shown >spades. He failed to mention, however, >that the other reason of the failure to overcall could be the lack of >enough HCPs. Gawrys therefore drew a conclusion from Balicki's >remark that his RHO had a hand that normally overcalls 1D over >the 1C opening so he tried the trump finesse despite having some >clues from the lead that the finesse was doomed to fail. > After the board was over Gawrys stated that it was Balicki's >remark that made him think that the trump king was onside but >finally decided not to call the TD (I quote all the facts according >to an interview with Cezary Balicki in the Polish "Brydz" magazine). >But suppose he did; you approach the table, listen to the whole >story and have to rule. Do you rule that when North said "We play >Lambda over 1C" he could have known that this might accrue to >is side? No, I don't. That would be too deep IMO. Balicki was clearly trying to be helpful, and it is virtually impossible for someone in Balicki's seat to have discerned that this could turn into one of the very rare situations where Gawrys's analysis was less than immaculate. >Do you think that East should have brought his contract home >nonetheless? Just what is your ruling? I am absolutely fascinated by lots of aspects. Having played against B-Z, Balicki's attempt to be helpful with his remark seems to me to be totally in character. I would rule "result stands", but not be confident that my ruling is best. The inference about the heart exit should be fairly overwhelming* and Gawrys seems to have misjudged. The suit pref card and the club exit more or less mark South with SK and CQ. This gives North either 4, 5, 7 or 8 HCP, most of which are in Lambda's 0-7 range. With HK, North might have risked 2D, though probably not at the prevailing vulnerability, but with a 4 or 5 count North would never bid vul against not. Thus North's comment makes North less likely to have HK, and should have helped declarer, as Balicki had intended it to. Without the comment, the possibility of a 2D WJO on a 4 or 5 count remains; after the comment it doesn't. There's a lot to weigh up - tossing 1D overcalls in - but I think the comment overall helped declarer and he failed to take full advantage. Balicki's failure to mention the points was not the most relevant thing IMO - is Balicki meant to provide a blueprint of his actual hand by selecting those parts of the long description of Lambda which his ultra-capable opponent will find most useful? Not IMO. Another aspect that I find interesting is that the Polish superstars are sufficiently interested in the ethics of the game to take part in this sort of discussion in the magazine. Other than Michael Rosenberg, this is not so common elsewhere. I am not surprised by it; it confirms my experience that the top Polish players, like the top British** ones, have a highly developed sense of fair play. Pszczola side issue: With Adam asking about Pszczola's pronunciation, I am reminded of my unsuccessful attempts to pronounce "Stargard-Szczecinski", which is where I am headed in a couple of days to be an Assistant at the World Junior Pairs/Camp. Re "szcz" , common to both names, my Polish friend here tells me that the "z" is pronounced more like "shch" than "szcz", but I still couldn't say it properly. I am definitely a dummy when it comes to linguistics. I was hoping to get to Krakow afterthe WJP/C, but have little time so will probably have to go straight from the bridge to Prague, alas. Peter Gill Australia, and very excited about going to Poland. *even at the end of a long week in a foreign country. **Rosenberg is originally British, Glaswegian to be specific. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 18:32:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f638VpW23385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:31:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f638Vjt23355 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:31:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.51]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GFW2J300.9NC for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:35:27 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-132.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.132]) by mail7.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 15/2318213); 03 Jul 2001 18:30:10 Message-ID: <019f01c10399$c35cc100$84e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 18:25:47 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: >I also played in this event, but had finished nowhere, so the TD >asked my disinterested advice on what was an appropriate ruling. > >West's rationale for a hesitation which could help his side >reminded me of a classic Edgar Kaplan comment, (in his BW series >of articles on Appeals Committees) "If you believe that, he will >tell you another." > >It is obvious that declarer has two stoppers whether the CA or >CQ wins the first trick. But there is no valid bridge advantage >in playing CA first, since South could later duck the CQ. And >if West thought that South would misdefend, creating an entry >with the CJ for a possible later finesse against the SJ, then >why was the routine CQ card still played sloooowly at Trick One? > >So my advice to the TD was that there had been an obvious >infraction of L73F2. I wondered about this too. Richard's comments do seem to be extremely logical, on the face of it. Now that I know who the hesitator was (after a tennis game with the Director, then lunch today with a friend who happened to be on the AC - this Appeal seems to be following me around), I think my opposite view is OK. Am I allowed to be affected by personal experience here? I partnered the hesitator in a couple of events a while ago, and found him to be a deep thinker who thinks about the oddest things. Thus I would accept his comment that he was thinking about whether to play CQ or CA, partly because there was little else to be thinking about (when you look at the full hand, declarer is always going to attack diamonds next), and partly because my inside info is that this is typical of him. Should I have a word with him about trying to time his tanks better? He ccould hardly have said that he was thinking about the hand rather than the trick (because he wasn't), but he could have thought at the traditional time - before dummy plays to Trick One. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 20:51:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63ApDQ13162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:51:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.ihug.com.au (root@smtp3.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63Ap7t13127 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:51:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (p376-tnt1.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.161.122]) by smtp3.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id UAA03816 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 20:49:06 +1000 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp3.ihug.com.au: Host p376-tnt1.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.161.122] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010703204447.00ec8e90@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 20:44:47 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A fellow Director sent me the following situation and asked if I could post it on BLML. Laurie - Qx - J xx - - x x Jx - - x x 10 - East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to be played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, simply stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in dummy". South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director is called. Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten that a trump is outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, and then takes just a few moments to look at the situation. He is just about to make the obvious ruling: the defenders will be awarded a trick with the D10, because if North were to lead a club at this stage, the D10 would be promoted. North however now states: "I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give declarer a ruff and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. How does one now rule? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 21:25:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63BPKL22527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:25:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63BP8t22523 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:25:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:23:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:22:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: >A fellow Director sent me the following situation and asked if I could post >it on BLML. > >Laurie > > > - > Qx > - > J > >xx - >- x >x Jx >- - > > x > x > 10 > - > >East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to be >played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, simply >stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in dummy". > >South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director is called. >Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten that a trump is >outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, and then takes just a >few moments to look at the situation. He is just about to make the obvious >ruling: the defenders will be awarded a trick with the D10, because if >North were to lead a club at this stage, the D10 would be promoted. > >North however now states: >"I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give declarer a ruff >and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" > >As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really >relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > >How does one now rule? L70C states that if a trump is outstanding, that trump will make a trick if: 1) claimer did not mention it; 2) was probably unaware of it; 3) there is a normal play which lets this trump make. Obviously, conditions 1 and 2 are met. Under normal conditions TD will award a trick to the D10. However, North repeatedly insists that he never ever in all of his life (add your favourite list of exclamations here :) ) will play the club. Well, in that case playing the club is no longer a normal play for this North player, hence all tricks must be awarded to declarer. I think South will friendly (or not so friendly) ask his partner to keep his big trap shut next time... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 21:39:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63BdUr22540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:39:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f63BdOt22536 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:39:25 +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, 3 Jul 2001 13:38:50 +0200 Message-ID: <010a01c103b4$b37265e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010703204447.00ec8e90@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:38:36 +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 f63BdQt22537 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Laurie Kelso To: Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 12:44 PM Subject: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable > > A fellow Director sent me the following situation and asked if I could post > it on BLML. > > Laurie > > > - > Qx > - > J > > xx - > - x > x Jx > - - > > x > x > 10 > - > > East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to be > played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, simply > stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in dummy". > > South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director is called. > Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten that a trump is > outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, and then takes just a > few moments to look at the situation. He is just about to make the obvious > ruling: the defenders will be awarded a trick with the D10, because if > North were to lead a club at this stage, the D10 would be promoted. > > North however now states: > "I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give declarer a ruff > and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" > > As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really > relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > > How does one now rule? > After a claim, play stops. That means that North will not get the chance to misdefend, no matter how much he would want to. NS get the trick that they would have never gotten if declarer wouldn't have claimed since the claimer is allowed to be careless, but his opponents are not. 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 Jul 3 21:59:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63Bx2Q22560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:59:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f63Bwtt22556 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:58:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f63ButZ19636 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:56:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010703204447.00ec8e90@pop.ihug.com.au> Laurie Kelso wrote > > A fellow Director sent me the following situation and asked if I could > post it on BLML. > > Laurie > > > - > Qx > - > J > > xx - > - x > x Jx > - - > > x > x > 10 > - > > East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to > be played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, > simply stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in > dummy". > > South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director is > called. > Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten that a trump is > outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, and then takes just > a few moments to look at the situation. He is just about to make the > obvious ruling: the defenders will be awarded a trick with the D10, > because if North were to lead a club at this stage, the D10 would be > promoted. > > North however now states: > "I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give declarer a > ruff and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" > > As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really > relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > > How does one now rule? As usual I rule all doubtful points against the claimer. I accept that North's lead is a heart (maybe asking one more time if he is absolutely sure) and there is no rational line to avoid three tricks. North obviously doesn't want a good score he knows he would never have got at the table and I wouldn't impose one on him. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 21:59:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63BxA322564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:59:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f63Bwtt22555 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:59:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f63Busv19615 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:56:54 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:56 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules 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: <01e501c10385$87088220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > AFTER A 1 NT OPENING BID... > > A player has the right to examine a convention card when it his or her > turn to call. If a player chooses to examine the convention card after > 1NT opening bid and then takes no immediate action, the directors will > address this issue as one where unauthorized information has been made > available. The director will be very liberal in judging that this > unauthorized information (looking at the card) may have demonstrably > suggested an action to partner. If it is judged that there was a > logical alternative to the action taken by partner, the director may > assign an adjusted score. > > ["Very liberal" here means very strict, I believe - mlf] I agree - but the wording seems sufficiently clear even if not optimal. > If it so happens that the 1 NT was weak and there was no announcement, > the director will be very liberal in assigning an adjusted score > because of the misinformation (the failure to announce). > > [ditto - mlf] > > Alan > ######## > > I understand Alan's intention here, which is to avoid unnecessary UI > during the bidding. However, some opponents like to look at the > convention > card for reasons other than seeing the 1NT HCP range, e.g., whether they > have "systems on" over interference, or often open with a five-card > major (one of the check boxes). Are we likely to be on lead because > there are lots of transfers? Better start thinking about that. And so > forth. I can't see that a glance at the CC has inherent UI problems. A glance probably doesn't. However for most people our eyesight lets us down when trying to see a CC on the table - it is even harder when the CC is pointed away from us and under the opponents drink/elbow/arse/etc. I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of the opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth emphasising this. On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the EBU's). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 22:02:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63C1vd22586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:01:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63C0st22582 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:00:55 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id C58D32A5835; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:58:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 7C1E22A4EFA for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:58:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 14456 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2001 11:58:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by 217.74.65.40 with SMTP; 3 Jul 2001 11:58:49 -0000 Message-ID: <3B41B2D9.9010500@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:56:09 +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] Careless vs Equitable References: <3.0.6.32.20010703204447.00ec8e90@pop.ihug.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: bc914acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > > As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really > relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > > How does one now rule? > My reading of the L79C is that it is indeed irrelevant what North was going to play; South objected to the claim and playing a club by North is a normal line. Just like that. 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 Tue Jul 3 22:46:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63CkXV08328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:46:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63CkRt08288 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h193.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.193]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f63CiNs09093 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:44:23 +0400 Message-ID: <3B41B0AA.3406B592@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:46:50 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <200107022323.TAA16083@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Hi Steve:) Thank you for your kind words:) > I wrote: > > Even when your hand is something like 3-3-3-4, 3-4 points? > You answered: > Yes, _especially_ in that case. If the double is for > penalty, I will almost certainly bid 2C to escape. It may not work > out, but my judgment (perhaps wrong!) is that the odds are better. There are several points: 1. Do you marked at your CC that you always ask this question after 1NT-Double (otherwise neither opps nor TD will know it) 2. Do your pd alert your possible bid of 2Clubs? And explain that it is from zero points and from 4 cards? 3. And in case od your Pass over the Double when it was not penalty, and last opponent passed too - the same problem for your pd: what is allowed to your pd at this very moment of truth? He knows (at least from your common history) that with high probability after PENALTY Double you escape, because after penalty Pass your hand may be estemated in 3-4 points (that's why I asked about your acion with such a hand). I guess that your pd will escape - and TD/AC will have problem to resolve. Cause they MAY think that it is UI case. Steve! I should repeat once more that it is no more than pure theoretical discussion:) All this made me even more sure that Doubles SHOULD be alertable at least at two rounds on bidding. Best wishes Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 3 23:57:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63DunX11187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:56:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bassia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-5.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63Duht11183 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:56:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from citronier.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.222) by bassia.wanadoo.fr; 3 Jul 2001 15:54:38 +0200 Received: from oemcomputer (193.249.111.27) by citronier.wanadoo.fr; 3 Jul 2001 15:54:19 +0200 Message-ID: <000f01c103c7$a12646a0$1b6ff9c1@oemcomputer> From: "Francis Wolff" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010703204447.00ec8e90@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:54:06 +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 Hello everybody I've been reading your posts on BLML for quite a while, with great pleasure and interest. I never interfered, but feel like doing it on this one. Laurie Kelso wrote : > > A fellow Director sent me the following situation and asked if I could post > it on BLML. > > Laurie > > > - > Qx > - > J > > xx - > - x > x Jx > - - > > x > x > 10 > - > > East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to be > played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, simply > stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in dummy". > > South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director is called. > Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten that a trump is > outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, and then takes just a > few moments to look at the situation. He is just about to make the obvious > ruling: the defenders will be awarded a trick with the D10, because if > North were to lead a club at this stage, the D10 would be promoted. > > North however now states: > "I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give declarer a ruff > and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" > > As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really > relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > > How does one now rule? > 1- Declarer claimed but never mentionned the outstanding trump ; 2- South objected to the claim 3- Is there a normal play allowing the D10 to score a trick ? The answer is obviously YES These three points seem to make North's insistance to play a heart irrelevant So the D10 must score a trick. Thank you for letting me know what's wrong ... Francis WOLFF France ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 02:15:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63GF4C15425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 02:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63GEvt15389 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 02:14:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA28609 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA23867 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:12:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107031612.MAA23867@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: vitold Please remember that we are talking about a theoretical situation here. In the ACBL, non-penalty doubles of a 1NT opening bid are alertable. In real life, I always ask about an alerted double, never about a non-alerted double. But if there were a rule that no doubles were alertable (as in Germany or Russia?) I would always ask. Now back to our theoretical discussion. > 1. Do you marked at your CC that you always ask this question after 1NT-Double > (otherwise neither opps nor TD will know it) No. There is no place on our CC's for such information, and how would I explain which doubles I ask about and which ones I don't. Perhaps this is something the SO ought to think about when it decides that doubles will not be alertable. > 2. Do your pd alert your possible bid of 2Clubs? And explain that it is from zero > points and from 4 cards? This question is practical, not theoretical, after a non-alerted and thus penalty double. No, I don't expect partner to alert. As far as I can tell, a natural escape bid isn't alertable in the ACBL. With some partners, I have discussed that a three-suited hand short in clubs may start with 2C and then redouble if the 2C bid is doubled. In these partnerships, the 2C bid probably should be alerted, but in practice I don't recall having ever used the bid with short clubs. (What does BLML think about alerting 2C in this case? I haven't done a simulation, but I bet it is long clubs 98-99% of the time.) > 3. And in case od your Pass over the Double when it was not penalty, and last opponent > passed too - the same problem for your pd: what is allowed to your pd at this very > moment of truth? This is also a practical question over an alerted double. I ask, as I always do, then pass. > He knows (at least from your common history) that with high > probability after PENALTY Double you escape, because after penalty Pass your hand may > be estemated in 3-4 points (that's why I asked about your acion with such a hand). This doesn't seem to be relevant over a non-penalty double. If the double is normally going to be taken out, I would be nuts to bid with a weak hand. > I > guess that your pd will escape - and TD/AC will have problem to resolve. Cause they > MAY think that it is UI case. In reality, partner will have no information, exactly because I always ask. But will the AC believe it? I suspect they usually will, here in the ACBL, because it is entirely normal to ask about any alerted call, regardless of one's hand. In a different jurisdiction, where a non-penalty double isn't alertable, I'm not sure. A lot depends on what the double showed, but certainly one possible hand I could hold is weak and balanced. Another is strongish (but not game values, most likely) and balanced, waiting to double the expected takeout. Probably also some unbalanced hands, waiting to see where the opponents are going but again less than game values. It isn't obvious that my questioning the double will suggest any one of these possibilities over the another, but if anything it probably suggests weakness. (I might have run out if the double were penalty.) So I think you are right; there are probably some cases where partner will take out the double and then we will be ruled against when the AC doesn't believe us about my "always ask" policy. But I don't see what I can do about that. "Sometimes ask" is clearly worse because partner then will have real UI, whether I ask or not, not just the appearance of UI. > All this made me even more sure that Doubles SHOULD be alertable at least at two > rounds on bidding. I think there is a very strong case for some doubles being alertable at least through opener's rebid. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 02:44:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63Ghmm25404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 02:43:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe43.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63Ghet25359 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 02:43:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:41:36 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.119] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:52:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2001 16:41:36.0098 (UTC) FILETIME=[0646D420:01C103DF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Newman To: BLML Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: [BLML] A standard congress appeal | Hi All, | | | I would be interested in BLML feedback on this appeal from a local (NSW, | Australia) congress. [I was not involved in any capacity so the facts may be | slightly different from described. Feel free to ask questions and I will try | and provide more detail if required.] | | This was a typical congress - appeals committee formed from 3 experienced | players in the event (who were not in contention), who are not experts in | the laws of bridge. I would be interested in how a procedure could be put | in place so that the appropriate laws, considerations are at the fingertips | of the appeals committee. Any ideas? | [I have sat on many appeals committees with fine/expert players who wanted | to make rulings that had no basis in law but met their own standard of fair | (until the law(s) was pointed out to them by me - and I am no expert)] | | S- 985 | H- QJ10843 | D- 74 | C- 65 | | S- A103 S- KQ42 | H- AK652 H- 97 | D- J32 D- Q1086 | C- AQ C- J32 | | S- J76 | H- void | D- AK95 | C- K109874 | | 2H, pass, pass, 2NT | pass, 3C, X, 3NT | all pass | | The bidding: | | West North East South | -- 2H Pass Pass | 2NT Pass 3C Dble | 3NT All pass | Lead: C6 | | Play: | T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* | Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. | [Hesitation agreed] | T2: D2, 4, Q, K | | Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point and | declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts and 2 clubs. | | The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. | | EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether to win the | CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a spade) but in the end | decided to win the CQ. The appeals committee agreed this was a valid bridge | reason for the hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. | | Comments appreciated. | | Best Regards, | | Peter Something I can't ignore is that it was foreseeable that a variation in tempo before playing to the trick could be improperly misleading. Surely declarer knows to determine his plan before playing dummy's card. So, supposedly having already considered his play from AQ, is it legitimate to consider again his play from AQ given the auction information? In other words, was there something new to think about? Imo, it is only legitimate [the only new thing] to think again when, absent 'surprising information from defender, he suspects his play from dummy was a mistake which would affect his play to the trick. And this could only be so holding AQx. For a defender in that position it is prudent to avoid giving up a third club [by leading it] and because a diamond [possibly] also forfeits a trick that leaves a spade. I think the responsibility established in L73D1 is sufficiently strong to rule that it prevails in this case. Though uncomfortable for the director I think it is right to rule that the huddle, though unintentional, improperly deflected a club return (adjust the score). regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 03:17:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63HHSx01091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 03:17:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63HHLt01087 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 03:17:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive44r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.155]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA12861; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:15:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <009001c103e4$21e99eb0$9b10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <01e501c10385$87088220$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:17:39 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I for one think that this policy is horrid,,,especially in a club game. We are getting so paranoid over UI that it is becoming a more serious threat to the game than black magic ever was. Want to get Aunt Tillie to stop playing club bridge? Just penalize her for asking what to her is a perfectly reasonable question. I certainly do not agree that there is no difference between 15-17 and 16-18. The flaw is in not requiring the point range to ALWAYS be announced. Then there can be no UI by defenders. I hear that the ACBL has been considering that modification and hope they adopt it. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 1:54 AM Subject: [BLML] Club Rules > Alan le Bendig, ACBL National Director and recent addition to the WBF > Executive Committee (hope that's right) has ownership (maybe partial, I > don't know) in a Los Angeles bridge club, the Bennington. He has written the > following for his customers, which has been blessed by ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss: > > ####### > While I have serious disagreements about the "rights" of a club to make > certain changes in the Laws or "rules" of our game, I do recognize the > concerns that are being raised. I have heard some potential scenarios > whereby a club makes a totally silly change in the Laws such as declaring > that hearts now outrank spades. While I firmly believe a club should have > that right, I also think it is crystal clear that the marketplace will > prohibit any club from changing the game in such a manner. That club > would quickly find they had no customers. > > Thanks to some wording assistance from Gary, we have modified the wording > of our "Don't ask" policy. While some of you may still find this > distasteful, you will have to agree that it is totally "legal." > > I find it a little surprising that some are so alarmed at an effort being > made to bring this whole issue back to what the Board originally intended. > This was one of the main purposes in instituting this announcement. > > These changes answer all of our concerns and make no changes in what we > originally intended. Our restated policy is included below: > =================================================== > AFTER A 1 NT OPENING BID... > > After a 1NT opening bid, any inquiry as to range by the RHO of the NT > opener will receive a 1/4 board procedural penalty. If there has been no > range announcement, a player must assume that the range is within the 15-18 > HCP > range. Therefore, any subsequent inquiry about the range of the 1 NT is > deemed to be a repeat question that has already been answered by the lack > of an announcement. We will therefore treat this as obstructing the game. > We do not accept the fact that there is a significant difference between > 15-17, 15-18 or 16-18 that will affect any decision that needs to be made at > this point. Any later inquiry is totally appropriate and does not present a > problem. This penalty will not be applied to a player who is not familiar > with our policy. A warning would be issued in that case and a penalty > applied to any subsequent violations of this policy. > > [Opponents may want to know more than the point range, such as what > responses might be expected - mlf] > > A player has the right to examine a convention card when it his or her > turn to call. If a player chooses to examine the convention card after a > 1NT opening bid and then takes no immediate action, the directors will > address this issue as one where unauthorized information has been made > available. The director will be very liberal in judging that this > unauthorized information (looking at the card) may have demonstrably > suggested an action to partner. If it is judged that there was a logical > alternative to the action taken by partner, the director may assign > an adjusted score. > > ["Very liberal" here means very strict, I believe - mlf] > > If it so happens that the 1 NT was weak and there was no announcement, the > director will be very liberal in assigning an adjusted score because of > the misinformation (the failure to announce). > > [ditto - mlf] > > Alan > ######## > > I understand Alan's intention here, which is to avoid unnecessary UI > during the bidding. However, some opponents like to look at the convention > card for reasons other than seeing the 1NT HCP range, e.g., whether they > have "systems on" over interference, or often open with a five-card > major (one of the check boxes). Are we likely to be on lead because > there are lots of transfers? Better start thinking about that. And so > forth. I can't see that a glance at the CC has inherent UI problems. > > What does BLML think? > > Marv > > > > > > > > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 05:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63Ja9415689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:36:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dc-mx07.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx07.cluster0.hsacorp.net [209.225.8.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63JZwt15679 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 05:36:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.196.224.90] (HELO oemcomputer) by dc-mx07.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.6) with SMTP id 10669234 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <001901c103f7$6e0c7480$5ae0c418@charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "BLML" References: <0d9f01c10282$1f1b6e60$3703ac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:36:17 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Newman" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 7:04 PM Subject: [BLML] A standard congress appeal : > Lead: C6 > > Play: > T1: C6, 2, 4, Q* > Declarer hesitated for about 30 seconds before playing the queen. > [Hesitation agreed] > T2: D2, 4, Q, K > > Playing declarer for 3 clubs South switched a spade at this point and > declarer emerged home with 4 spades, 1 diamond, 2 hearts and 2 clubs. > > The director was called and the contract was adjusted to 3NT -1. Did declarer advise the director of the bridge reason for the hesitation or was first stated in committee???? I think this is an important consideration which I haven't seen addressed. Cheers.........../Bill Bickford > > EW appealed and stated that declarer was thinking about whether to win the > CA or CQ (to try and get an entry to dummy to hook a spade) but in the end > decided to win the CQ. The appeals committee agreed this was a valid bridge > reason for the hesitation and the score was returned to 3NT making. > > Comments appreciated. > > Best Regards, > > Peter > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 06:37:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63KalG17955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 06:36:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63KaZt17941 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 06:36:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-190.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.190]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f63KYOu07887 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:34:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000601c10400$174e40c0$be3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> <3B40EBBB.C409E228@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:18:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "vitold" wrote: > For my opinion - there is quite more > important problem that even was not > noticed: highly artificial Pass of Balicky WAS NOT ALERTED. There was no highly artificial pass. The pass over the 1C opener probably was alertable, though. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 06:37:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63KalL17954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 06:36:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63KaXt17939 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 06:36:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-190.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.190]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f63KYPu07891 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:34:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000701c10400$17a22d20$be3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 22:22:36 +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 "Konrad Ciborowski" asked: > Deal 28 > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable > > J3 > 94 > KJ9764 > 832 > Q4 A865 > QJ53 A1076 > AQ105 82 > J107 AK9 > K10972 > K83 > 3 > Q654 > > Pszczola Balicki Gawrys Zmudzinski > W N E S > 1C* pass 1H pass > 2H pass 4H pass > pass pass > > *Polish (five card 1D) > > Zmudzinski led the d3 (2nd/4th). Gawrys tried dummy's dQ but > Balicki won and returned the d7 for Zmudzinski to ruff. Zmudzinski > returned the c4 and dummy's cJ held. > Balicki's return of the middle diamond indicated that he was > unwilling to give a suit preference to any particular suit. So Zmudzinski > had every reason to simply return a trump instead of making that > very dangerous club play that blew one of the NS trick. The fact > that Zmudzinski did in fact underlead his queen was a strong indication > that he had started with Kxx in hearts and now had the king doubleton; > the only holding that would make a trump switch impossible at this point. > So after trick three Gawrys had several clues to find the winning > line: eliminate clubs and play hA and a heart endplaying Zmudzinski who > would have had to underlead his sK or to give a ruff and discard. Instead > declarer took the trump finesse and finished one down. > Where is the "could have known" stuff here? Well, there is more > to it than meets the eye. When the diamond was ruffed at trick two Gawrys > looked at Balicki with surprise in his eyes (albeit he didn't say a word) > clearly wondering why he failed to overcall with such a good suit. > Balicki reminded him that their defense against the Polish Club was > Lambda [a popular defense in Poland based on a strong > pass system created by Lukasz Slawinski in the 60s: pass = 0-7PC or > 8-15 balanced or 16+ any shape; others 8-15: dbl = H onesuiter, > 1D = S onesuiter, 1H = 5+-4+ H+C or S+D, 1S = 5+-4+ H+D or S+C, > 1NT = 5+-4+ H+S or C+D, 2C/D = C/D onesuiter, others pre-emptive - KC] so > a 1D overcall would have shown spades. He failed to mention, however, > that the other reason of the failure to overcall could be the lack of > enough HCPs. Gawrys therefore drew a conclusion from Balicki's remark > that his RHO had a hand that normally overcalls 1D over the 1C opening > so he tried the trump finesse despite having some clues from the lead > that the finesse was doomed to fail. > After the board was over Gawrys stated that it was Balicki's > remark that made him think that the trump king was onside but finally > decided not to call the TD (I quote all the facts according to an interview > with Cezary Balicki in the Polish "Brydz" magazine). But suppose he > did; you approach the table, listen to the whole story > and have to rule. Do you rule that when North said "We play Lambda > over 1C" he could have known that this might accrue to his side? > Do you think that East should have brought his contract home > nonetheless? Just what is your ruling, sweetheart? Result stands. In the almost impossible case that he was unfamiliar with that popular convention, Gawrys could have asked for further details about the lambda defense. N does not have to say explicitely "I did not overcall 2D because I do not have 8 HCP". Knowing the lambda defense, Gawrys should have worked out easily that Balicki had at most 8 HCP. Furthermore, the way the defense went had handed him a blueprint of the hand. I see neither infraction nor consequent damage. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 08:19:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f63MIc421330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:18:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f63MIUt21323 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:18:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h11.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.11]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f63MGS001950 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 02:16:28 +0400 Message-ID: <3B4236C0.B6A10CEF@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 01:18:56 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <200107031612.MAA23867@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) Steve Willner wrote: > With some partners, I have discussed that a three-suited hand short in > clubs may start with 2C and then redouble if the 2C bid is doubled. > In these partnerships, the 2C bid probably should be alerted, but in > practice I don't recall having ever used the bid with short clubs. > (What does BLML think about alerting 2C in this case? I haven't > done a simulation, but I bet it is long clubs 98-99% of the time.) > When I played highly artificial system we explained such a bids (there were a lot of them in different situations) as "Partner wants to play this contract without Double. In case of Double he may change his mind" It was tens years before, we were young:) Regards Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 16:08:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6467Xm14850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:07:33 +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 f6467Pt14844 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:07:26 +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; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:01:03 -0700 Message-ID: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:02:41 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > > I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of the > opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth emphasising > this. > > On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the > EBU's). > I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do that at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the policy is illegal. 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 Jul 4 16:29:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f646RZx15331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:27:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f646RTt15324 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:27:30 +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; Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:21:07 -0700 Message-ID: <009f01c10452$0e9ec4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:22:17 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really > > relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > > > > How does one now rule? > > As usual I rule all doubtful points against the claimer. I accept that > North's lead is a heart (maybe asking one more time if he is absolutely > sure) and there is no rational line to avoid three tricks. North > obviously doesn't want a good score he knows he would never have got at > the table and I wouldn't impose one on him. > I agree with the to-date majority: North's remarks are irrelevant. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 4 19:46:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f649i1g01286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 19:44:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f649hqt01235 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 19:43:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f649fo208769 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:41:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:41 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules 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: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of > > the opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth > > emphasising this. > > > > On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the > > EBU's). > > > I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids > something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my > hand. As do I. > I thought that was permitted by L40E2. It is. The key point in the EBU is that asking/looking after an opposing 1NT bid will *not* reveal anything about its strength because you are expected to know already. In the ACBL you will know it is in the 15-18 range because of the lack of announcement. I tend to agree with Alan that the difference between 15-17 and 16-18 is never going to affect my choice of call. > Alan would not let me do > that at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think > the policy is illegal. Alan does not prevent you from asking/looking. He merely points out that asking/looking in this situation will restrict partner from making borderline calls. 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 Jul 4 20:12:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64ABvf11440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:11:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64ABot11408 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:11:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.51]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GFY1TU00.D0F for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:15:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-174.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.174]) by mail7.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 15/2893849); 04 Jul 2001 20:09:27 Message-ID: <001601c10470$e6ae10a0$aedd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:05:48 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > > - > Qx > - > J > >xx - >- x >x Jx >- - > > x > x > 10 > - > >East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks >remaining to be played. With North about to lead to trick 11, >declarer claims, simply stating "the rest are mine, because the >heart can be ruffed in dummy". > >South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director >is called. Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten >that a trump is outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, >and then takes just a few moments to look at the situation. He is >just about to make the obvious ruling: the defenders will be >awarded a trick with the D10, because if North were to lead >a club at this stage, the D10 would be promoted. > >North however now states: >"I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give >declarer a ruff and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" > >As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really >relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > >How does one now rule? Law 70C3. My judgement would be that a trick could be lost to the trump only by an abnormal play, i.e declarer gets the rest of the tricks. Law 68D states only that "play ceases", not that "comments about what would have happened cease". I regard North's comments as relevant i.e. as something to be considered when making my ruling. I wasn't at all confident about my ruling until I re-read Laws 68, 69, 70 and 71. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 20:58:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64Aw4B13072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:58:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64Avvt13065 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:57:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.68.131] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15HkK3-0006zh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:55:55 +0100 Message-ID: <006601c10477$b46ac500$83447ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:54:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: - Qx - J xx - - x x Jx - - x x 10 - > > East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to > > be played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, > > simply stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in > > dummy". [snip] > As usual I rule all doubtful points against the claimer. I accept that > North's lead is a heart (maybe asking one more time if he is absolutely > sure) and there is no rational line to avoid three tricks. Of course there is. North leads a heart, ruffed in dummy, and declarer ruffs the next trick with DJ. If a player believes that there are no trumps out, then he believes that it can make no difference with which trump he ruffs. Or do we now assert that it is irrational to ruff high when under the impression that there are no outstanding trumps? 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 Jul 4 21:01:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64B1Su13165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:01:28 +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 f64B1Ht13153 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:01:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f64AxFn27268 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:59:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable 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: <009f01c10452$0e9ec4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > I agree with the to-date majority: North's remarks are irrelevant. Hi Marv, since you consistently maintain that *any* uncorroborated testimony by the players be ignored this is not surprising. Those who prefer to listen to testimony and weight it accordingly may come to a different conclusion. Here we have a case of insistent testimony from North and no reason whatever to doubt its veracity. Why would a TD wish to ignore such testimony. If, as North, I told the TD I had miscounted the hand and placed partner with x,-,T,x and was about to lead a heart I would expect this to be accepted as well. As with any claim ruling I expect a TD to start with 70A: General Objective - In ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. To my mind this is clearly expected to set the general context for all claims rulings. So what are the doubtful points. Absent North's testimony we are unsure what the lead might be heart or club. Since a club gains a trick without the option we rule that way. However once we accept North's testimony we must evaluate the claim on the basis of a heart lead ruffed in dummy. We could say that declarer, considering his trumps equal might ruff with the Jack and still rule a trick to defence. Although I personally disagree with this (it seems so unnatural) I don't regard such a ruling as clearly wrong. I do consider it very wrong for a TD to ignore testimony which everybody regards as truthful. 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 Jul 4 21:01:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64B1Sv13166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:01:28 +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 f64B1Ht13154 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:01:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f64AxGO27280 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:59:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal 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: Roger Pewick wrote: > Something I can't ignore is that it was foreseeable that a variation > in tempo before playing to the trick could be improperly misleading. > Surely declarer knows to determine his plan before playing dummy's > card. So, supposedly having already considered his play from AQ, is > it legitimate to consider again his play from AQ given the auction > information? In other words, was there something new to think about? Obviously my brain works differently. A quick glance at dummy tells me that my choice of card makes no difference. It is also obvious that if RHO plays the CK to this trick my problems are over - so small from dummy. Damn! Didn't really expect the king but now I have to think. Not only that but I have to think about this trick because I now know I only have two club stops and there may be advantages to having the threat of a dummy entry. OTOH If there was significant thought both before the first card from dummy and after the CK I might be persuaded to agree with Roger. 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 Jul 4 21:17:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64BHP813531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:17:25 +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 f64BHJt13527 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:17:20 +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 NAA28021; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:14:55 +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 NAA03113; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:15:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010704131953.007eeca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:19:53 +0200 To: Reg Busch , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or AI? In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20010703150811.00695b3c@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 15:08 3/07/01 -0700, Reg Busch wrote: >This bidding sequence occurred at a recent congress, using written bidding, >in an uncontested auction >North South >1C 1H >2C 2S. >South now almost immediately crossed out her 2S bid and changed the bid to >3H. North, holding a small doubleton spade, bid 3NT, makinmg 9 tricks for >NS +400. Now, and not until now, the Director was called (by North!) who >asked whether the 2S bid was AI. The Director ruled it was UI, and adjusted >the score. > >Much as one would like to agree, I can't find a Law which supports this >decision. Law 16C, the obvious reference, starts by saying 'A call or play >may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side >after an oppnent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an >infraction...'. This was not the situation here. Law 25B (delayed or >purposeful correction) says 'the substituted call may be accepted at the >option of offender's LHO; then, the second call stands and the auction >proceeds without penalty', but says nothing about AI or UI. AG : if the NOS fear that the 2S bid has given too much information, they may disallow the 3H bid. Now the penalties and corections provided by L25B2b will be enough to ensure that they aren't harmed. AI vs UI is not an isue here, so the TD was wrong. >NS were reasonably experienced, EW less so. Both pairs were members of a >club where a common attitude is that players calling the Director are just >troublemakers! AG : that's where the shoe rubs. The TD should have : 1) lectured both sides on their duties according to L9 and warned them that penalties could be imposed (or even directly imposed penalties). Apply L11A and 11C. 2) let the score stand, because no law can apply to the case. L16C doesn't, because there was no correction of infraction (a concept that applies to what happens *after* the TD has explained the rules). I would have had to reluctantly concede that the 2S bid was >AI. One couldn't even penalise NS for a Law 9 breach because attention had >not been drawn to the infraction! AG : this assumes that no player at the table knew it was an infraction. In this case, change the lecture about L9 to another about L25. And there is always L72A1 if they don't admit they did anything wrong. Perhaps we could adjust the score under >72B ('could have known'). AG : this would be too severe. L72B should be reserved for cases where there could have been malign intent. I deeply feel this is not the case here. 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 Jul 4 21:22:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64BMMY13610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:22:22 +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 f64BMAt13595 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:22:10 +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 ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:21:25 +0200 Message-ID: <005d01c1047b$70f24a60$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <001601c10470$e6ae10a0$aedd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:21:15 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f64BMGt13601 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > > - > > Qx > > - > > J > > > >xx - > >- x > >x Jx > >- - > > > > x > > x > > 10 > > - > > > >East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks > >remaining to be played. With North about to lead to trick 11, > >declarer claims, simply stating "the rest are mine, because the > >heart can be ruffed in dummy". > > > >South, who holds a trump, objects to the claim and the Director > >is called. Declarer repeats the statement; clearly he has forgotten > >that a trump is outstanding. The Director hears South's objection, > >and then takes just a few moments to look at the situation. He is > >just about to make the obvious ruling: the defenders will be > >awarded a trick with the D10, because if North were to lead > >a club at this stage, the D10 would be promoted. > > > >North however now states: > >"I was about to lead a heart! I know that a club would give > >declarer a ruff and discard, and so I'd never ever do that!" > > > >As the Director begins to explain to North that this is not really > >relevant, North once again insists that he was about to lead a heart. > > > >How does one now rule? > > Law 70C3. My judgement would be that a trick could be lost to > the trump only by an abnormal play, i.e declarer gets the rest > of the tricks. Law 68D states only that "play ceases", not that > "comments about what would have happened cease". > I regard North's comments as relevant i.e. as something to > be considered when making my ruling. I wasn't at all confident > about my ruling until I re-read Laws 68, 69, 70 and 71. > > Peter Gill > Australia. > The TD is supposed to follow the procedure in Law 70 B: '[70]B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1. Require Claimer to Repeat Statement The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 2. Require All Hands to Be Faced Next, the Director requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. 3. Hear Objections The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. ' You would be right if North would be playing alone, but it was _South_ who objected to the claim in the first place. Wouldn't it be logical to hear _his_ objections to the claim first when the director gets to 70B3? Don't you think that he would be able to solve this double dummy problem? The fact that North was on lead is absolutely irrelevant to the problem. Do Laws 68-71 say anything about the defender on lead? No. However Law 70B3 states "the opponents' objections" (with the "s" and "'" in that order! ;o). Plural, that means that both opponents may voice their objections. No matter how strong his language was, I am not going to believe that North would insist on the wrong line of play after his partner has pointed out to him how he should play. 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 Wed Jul 4 21:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64BOYL13700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:24:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f64BOQt13688 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:24:27 +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 NAA06085; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:18:52 +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 NAA07235; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:22:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010704132701.007e5e40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:27:01 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200107022339.QAA10631@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:39 2/07/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >This situation raises a question that has perplexed me for some time, >and I'm sure has been a source of consternation to other bridge >players as well: Just how the heck do you pronounce "Pszczola"? AG : I think it is simply P-sh-ch-ola. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 21:30:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64BU0W13975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:30:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail49.fg.online.no (mail49-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64BTpt13963 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:29:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from siri (ti34a62-0167.dialup.online.no [130.67.72.167]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08661; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:27:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Tommy Sandsmark" To: "David Burn" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:24:28 +0200 Message-ID: <000a01c1047b$e319c550$0a646464@siri> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <006601c10477$b46ac500$83447ad5@pbncomputer> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with David in toto. The claim is far too early. As a TD I would rule that North now is allowed to play a club, which gives South a trick an passent. And, even if I would allow North to play a heart according to Easts wishes (which I don't), it would be not be irrational, but maybe careless to ruff the spade return from dummy with the jack. As long as East has not mentioned the possibilities of any outstanding trumps, one must assume that he doesn't believe there is any trumps out, in which case it wouldn't matter at all which trump he ruffs with. Tommy Tommy Sandsmark T.: 22 43 02 14 Bridge & Kryss F.: 22 43 42 99 BygdЬy AllИ 73 B E.: xbridge@online.no 0268 Oslo Norway -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:54 PM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Tim wrote: - Qx - J xx - - x x Jx - - x x 10 - > > East is declarer in a diamond contract, with three tricks remaining to > > be played. With North about to lead to trick 11, declarer claims, > > simply stating "the rest are mine, because the heart can be ruffed in > > dummy". [snip] > As usual I rule all doubtful points against the claimer. I accept that > North's lead is a heart (maybe asking one more time if he is absolutely > sure) and there is no rational line to avoid three tricks. Of course there is. North leads a heart, ruffed in dummy, and declarer ruffs the next trick with DJ. If a player believes that there are no trumps out, then he believes that it can make no difference with which trump he ruffs. Or do we now assert that it is irrational to ruff high when under the impression that there are no outstanding trumps? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 21:38:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64Bbwm14393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:37:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64Bbot14384 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA07890; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:32:18 +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 NAA15545; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:35:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010704134027.007e3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:40:27 +0200 To: "Thomas Dehn" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final In-Reply-To: <000601c10400$174e40c0$be3d1dc2@rabbit> References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> <3B40EBBB.C409E228@elnet.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:18 3/07/01 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >"vitold" wrote: >> For my opinion - there is quite more >> important problem that even was not >> noticed: highly artificial Pass of Balicky WAS NOT ALERTED. > >There was no highly artificial pass. >The pass over the 1C opener >probably was alertable, though. AG : yes, just to say that pass is the normal action on any 16+, because the other 2 meanings are quite expected. The non-alert was not a severe infraction. Come to think of it, passing on strong hands after a forcing opening isn't unexpected, either. 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 Jul 4 21:38:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64BcHe14420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:38:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64Bc5t14402 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:38:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f64Ba3019249 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:36:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable 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: <006601c10477$b46ac500$83447ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Of course there is. North leads a heart, ruffed in dummy, and declarer > ruffs the next trick with DJ. If a player believes that there are no > trumps out, then he believes that it can make no difference with which > trump he ruffs. Or do we now assert that it is irrational to ruff high > when under the impression that there are no outstanding trumps? This is a judgement issue. I believe that, in general, "normal" means playing suits from the top and ruffing from the bottom. I have an ongoing issue with the fact that "normal" is not the opposite of "irrational" and that that makes consistent application of the claims laws difficult. In this example I know that it can never gain to ruff high and may cost if trumps were miscounted so I don't feel classifying such an abnormal* play as irrational is wrong. I can also see where DB is coming from, of course it is perfectly rational to choose either of two cards which a player "knows" to be equal in value. I seriously doubt that TDs/AC members are uniformly behind either approach. *abnormal enough that I admit I didn't even see the possibility the first time I looked at the hand. 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 Jul 4 21:58:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64Bvm117026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:57:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f64Bvdt16976 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:57:40 +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 NAA10231; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:52:06 +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 NAA27215; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:55:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010704140016.007df100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:00:16 +0200 To: Martin Sinot , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:22 3/07/01 +0200, Martin Sinot wrote: > >Obviously, conditions 1 and 2 are met. Under normal conditions TD will >award a trick to the D10. However, North repeatedly insists that he never >ever in all of his life (add your favourite list of exclamations here :) ) >will play the club. Well, in that case playing the club is no longer a >normal play for this North player, hence all tricks must be awarded to >declarer. AG : there is nothing in the Laws that ask us to consider whether the Club was a normal play *for this player*, only whether it was a normal play. Obviously it was. The TD has to consider this case, which results in 1 trick to N/S. And this holds true even if East knew there was an outstanding trump. He could have miscounted the hand and thought North had nothing but hearts. If I had to bet on an explanation for his faulty claim, I would choose the latter. 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 Jul 4 22:30:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64CTp428824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:29:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f64CTgt28775 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:29:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f64CReA21739 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:27:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:27 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable 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: <005d01c1047b$70f24a60$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Rik wrote: > No matter how strong his language was, I am not going to believe that > North would insist on the wrong line of play after his partner has > pointed out to him how he should play. Then one of us has misunderstood the problem. As I read it this was *exactly* what North was doing because he *knew* he would never have led a club. If North acknowledges even a faint possibility he might have led a club the case is trivial (one trick to EW). In general I expect players to give any information they consider relevant regardless of whether it supports/undermines their own case - perhaps I am just lucky in where I play. 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 Jul 4 22:44:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64CiOg04148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:44:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64CiHt04111 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:30:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:30:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : there is nothing in the Laws that ask us to consider whether the Club >was a normal play *for this player*, only whether it was a normal play. >Obviously it was. The TD has to consider this case, which results in 1 >trick to N/S. And this holds true even if East knew there was an >outstanding trump. He could have miscounted the hand and thought North had >nothing but hearts. If I had to bet on an explanation for his faulty claim, >I would choose the latter. Of course it doesn't matter whether North plays clubs or hearts. North plays a heart, declarer ruffs the next heart and ruffs a spade with the DJ. Not irrational, since NS have no trumps according to East. So South gets his trump trick anyway. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 4 23:10:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64D9cK13562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:09:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-hme0.midsouth.rr.com (mailout1-hme0.midsouth.rr.com [24.165.200.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64D9St13500 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:09:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from netvista1 (HubM-mcr-24-92-75-75.midsouth.rr.com [24.92.75.75]) by mailout1-hme0.midsouth.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f64D7P018158 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:07:25 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <004901c1048a$0a60d280$4b4b5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 08:05:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" 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 How about training people to (duh) look at their opponents' convention cards at the beginning of the round? I think that is the first thing I do when new opponents sit down or I move in to their table. It is the perfect time to say, "pard, 12-14 NT." -Chyah -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 5 02:13:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64GD4j17392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 02:13:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64GCtt17352 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 02:12:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h155.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.155]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f64GAo322773 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:10:50 +0400 Message-ID: <3B43328F.4F4E6CC8@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 19:13:19 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> <3B40EBBB.C409E228@elnet.msk.ru> <3.0.6.32.20010704134027.007e3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B43132F.1864218F@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk vitold пишет: > Hi all:) > > alain gottcheiner wrote:: > > > At 22:18 3/07/01 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > > > >There was no highly artificial pass. > > >The pass over the 1C opener > > >probably was alertable, though. > > > > AG : yes, just to say that pass is the normal action on any 16+, because > > the other 2 meanings are quite expected. The non-alert was not a severe > > infraction. Come to think of it, passing on strong hands after a forcing > > opening isn't unexpected, either. > > 1. Nevertheless, it was not alerted - otherwise there would not be any > problem for Declarer at all. It was absence of alert that created this case. > > 2. Passing with strong hand after forcing opening is good as tactical call, > but whenever it becomes part of agreement - it should be alerted - for my > old-fashioned and grey-minded opinion. > Let's read WBF system policy: the system is HUM when "Pass in the opening > position promises the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, > and the player who passes will or may hold values a queen or more above > average strength (i.e. an average hand contains 10 HCP). > OK, it is not opening bid. So - right you are: it is not HUM in accordance > with definition. But it is HUM - in accordance with sense of play. Have > opponent rights to get to know the very unusual agreement? > Moreover - even weak variants of such a Pass are rather too specifical: 0-7 > any distribution or 8-12, no singletons. This information also may be quite > important to opponents and may not be a secret from opponents. > 3. And suppose that Responder with weak hand after receiving FULL > information about meaning of Pass MIGHT PASS! What would be the auction? Why > such a possibility was taken away from opponents? And for my opinion - it is > the most powerful arm against such conventional multivariant Pass. Nobody > has rights to take it away - by non-alerting! > 4. Sorry, but on my opinion such non-alerted Pass is extremely severe > infraction (and happening in the discussed board only proves it - for me). > Best widhes, Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 5 02:20:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64GJuK19825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 02:19:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64GJnt19785 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 02:19:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h155.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.155]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f64GHjR24057 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:17:46 +0400 Message-ID: <3B43342E.D2436D2B@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 19:20:14 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> <3B40EBBB.C409E228@elnet.msk.ru> <3.0.6.32.20010704134027.007e3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B43132F.1864218F@elnet.msk.ru> <3B43328F.4F4E6CC8@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) It is my fault - but previous post was sent in wrong form. Sorry. alain gottcheiner wrote:: > At 22:18 3/07/01 +0200, Thomas Dehn wrote: > >There was no highly artificial pass. > >The pass over the 1C opener > >probably was alertable, though. > AG : yes, just to say that pass is the normal action on any 16+, because > the other 2 meanings are quite expected. The non-alert was not a severe > infraction. Come to think of it, passing on strong hands after a forcing > opening isn't unexpected, either. 1. Nevertheless, it was not alerted - otherwise there would not be any problem for Declarer at all. It was absence of alert that created this case. 2. Passing with strong hand after forcing opening is good as tactical call, but whenever it becomes part of agreement - it should be alerted - for my old-fashioned and grey-minded opinion. Let's read WBF system policy: the system is HUM when "Pass in the opening position promises the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes will or may hold values a queen or more above average strength (i.e. an average hand contains 10 HCP). OK, it is not opening bid. So - right you are: it is not HUM in accordance with definition. But it is HUM - in accordance with sense of play. Have opponent rights to get to know the very unusual agreement? Moreover - even weak variants of such a Pass are rather too specifical: 0-7 any distribution or 8-12, no singletons. This information also may be quite important to opponents and may not be a secret from opponents. 3. And suppose that Responder with weak hand after receiving FULL information about meaning of Pass MIGHT PASS! What would be the auction? Why such a possibility was taken away from opponents? And for my opinion - it is the most powerful arm against such conventional multivariant Pass. Nobody has rights to take it away - by non-alerting! 4. Sorry, but on my opinion such non-alerted Pass is extremely severe infraction (and happening in the discussed board only proves it - for me). Best widhes, Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 5 05:38:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64Jc0a25270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 05:38:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f64Jbrt25266 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 05:37:54 +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 UAA64430 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:35:44 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:36:14 +0100 Message-ID: <01C104C8.F7D0A160.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 20:36:13 +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 Is there anyway we can allow players to ask about an alerted call without hanging partner? This is a catch 22 situation for most players: If they don't ask they may lose the protection of the TD and if they do ask they will lose their good score if partner does something brilliant. Any takers on this one? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 5 06:41:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64Kf2g25319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 06:41:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail3.rdc1.on.home.com (femail3.rdc1.on.home.com [24.2.9.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f64Keut25311 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 06:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cr28252a ([24.42.196.173]) by femail3.rdc1.on.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010704203849.WUZL28433.femail3.rdc1.on.home.com@cr28252a>; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:38:49 -0700 Message-ID: <000801c104c9$9b5a2b80$adc42a18@flfrd1.on.wave.home.com> From: "Paul Hardy" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C104C8.F7D0A160.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:40:46 -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 Rightly or wrongly when I ask about an alert I always ask about every bid in the sequence.That way my partner and opponents don't know what specific bid I may be inquiring about. This is pretty good practice when you have long drawn out auctions, and unfortunately gets more obvious the less number of bids made. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 3:36 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Asking about an Alert > > > Is there anyway we can allow players to ask about an alerted call without hanging partner? > > This is a catch 22 situation for most players: If they don't ask they may lose the protection of the TD and > if they do ask they will lose their good score if partner does something brilliant. > > > Any takers on this one? > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 5 06:46:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f64KkEF25331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 06:46:14 +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 f64Kk8t25327 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 06:46:09 +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 f64KjAa28407 for ; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:45:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005c01c104ca$02163800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C104C8.F7D0A160.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Asking about an Alert Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:33:49 -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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > Is there anyway we can allow players to ask about an alerted call without hanging partner? > > This is a catch 22 situation for most players: If they don't ask they may lose the protection of the TD and > if they do ask they will lose their good score if partner does something brilliant. > > > Any takers on this one? > I don't see this as a problem, at least in ACBL-land. Most ambiguous calls require an Alert and most Alerts are explained on the CC. Therefore (in a formal event, anyway) we just look at the opposing CC every time there is an Alert. If perchance the answer isn't there, then we ask (unless we think asking might help the opponents). For unAlertable calls whose range or meaning is on the CC, we do the same. How could this practice create usable UI? Marv Marvin L. French 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 Thu Jul 5 10:53:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f650ql806020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:52:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f650qft06016 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:52:42 +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 15HxM7-000A4N-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:50:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:48:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <200107031612.MAA23867@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107031612.MAA23867@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >I think there is a very strong case for some doubles being alertable >at least through opener's rebid. I have suggested "on the first round". Others have pointed out support doubles, and Steve has said the above. I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" rather than "on the first round". -- 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 Jul 5 18:01:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6580X814766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:00:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6580Ot14727 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:00:26 +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, 5 Jul 2001 09:59:44 +0200 Message-ID: <003d01c10528$6f4f8e40$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <200107031612.MAA23867@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:59:35 +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 f6580St14744 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson Writes > Steve Willner writes > > >I think there is a very strong case for some doubles being alertable > >at least through opener's rebid. > > I have suggested "on the first round". Others have pointed out > support doubles, and Steve has said the above. > > I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" > rather than "on the first round". > IMO, all doubles should be alertable, except: The classic takeout double (partner has not bid anything else than 'Pass' or not given any information about his distribution (e.g. after a strong 1C)) below 4NT, the classic negative double (partner has shown opening values and a suit) and strength showing doubles (whether takeout-ish or penalty-ish) later in the auction. All doubles (and redoubles) with specific meanings (support, maximal, Rosenkranz, snapdragon, lead directing, redoubles promising first round control, ....) should be alerted. 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 Jul 5 23:21:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65DKeQ23734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:20:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65DKTt23690 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:20:30 +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 f65DINp87540 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010705091243.00aaa120@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:19:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:30 AM 7/4/01, Martin wrote: >alain gottcheiner wrote: > > >AG : there is nothing in the Laws that ask us to consider whether > the Club > >was a normal play *for this player*, only whether it was a normal play. > >Obviously it was. The TD has to consider this case, which results in 1 > >trick to N/S. And this holds true even if East knew there was an > >outstanding trump. He could have miscounted the hand and thought > North had > >nothing but hearts. If I had to bet on an explanation for his faulty > claim, > >I would choose the latter. > >Of course it doesn't matter whether North plays clubs or hearts. North >plays a heart, declarer ruffs the next heart and ruffs a spade with the >DJ. Not irrational, since NS have no trumps according to East. So South >gets his trump trick anyway. I don't accept this argument; I think it's "normal" to ruff small when one thinks there are no trump out, just as it's "normal" to play suits from the top down when one thinks there are no more out in the suit. If we were attempting to come up with guidelines for what constitutes "normal" play, I would include this. In the actual situation, I agree with Alain. Declarer loses the trick because he claimed a trick that he might not get on a possible "normal" play by North; the fact that North would not have found the play at the table 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 Fri Jul 6 00:32:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65EWGm01645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:32:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f65EWAt01641 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 00:32:10 +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 KAA18963 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA09630 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:30:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:30:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107051430.KAA09630@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" > rather than "on the first round". Through opener's rebid is, of course, the first round _for doubles_, so David has not changed his opinion. :-) It would be nice if "truly weird" later doubles could be alerted, but of course the problem is to have a workable definition of "truly weird." One example would be if the doubling side has shown a suit, and a later double of a cue bid in that suit says _do not_ lead it or otherwise shows weakness in the suit. Another is doubling a Blackwood response or other artificial bid to say "Do not lead this suit." The opponents may need to know about the unusual meaning before the auction is over, so a delayed alert isn't nearly so useful as an immediate one. But this is a very specific case, and rules that are a collection of specific cases are too hard to apply. If you like the overall EBU approach to alerting, it seems to work pretty well for late-round doubles. The natural meaning of double is "I have values in this suit, or perhaps I have another reason for thinking we ought to defend." If a double means anything else, it must be alerted. (Is that in fact the EBU rule?) The problem, of course, is the same as with other sequences in the EBU: there are a lot of alerts where "nobody" would play the double as natural, e.g. Lightner, or a second seat takeout double on the second round, either reopening or because a new suit has been bid (e.g., 1C-P-1H-P;2H-X = takeout of hearts). There is probably no perfect approach. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 6 01:10:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65F9Zx10415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 01:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f65F97t10345 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 01:09:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from iae.nl.iae.nl (pm18d47.iae.nl [212.61.4.46]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7989B20FBE for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:06:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009d01c10563$e495ac80$52023dd4@nl.iae.nl> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: [BLML] Law 66A versus 66C Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:03:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk West leads in trick 5 the diamond 7. The other players play a card in turn and the cards are quitted. Declarer south now realizes that he did not pay sufficient attention to the value of east's card and requires the players that all cards just played be faced. The ops say kindly no on which declarer summons the TD. Declarer now tells the TD that he is not sure anymore that he followed suit. ( south knows the rules ) because he forgot the lead. Of course the TD could secretly inspect the cards of west and south and a simple answer yes or no will do. But is south with his argument entitled to see all the cards of trick 5? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 6 02:41:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65Gehd15112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 02:40:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f65GeYt15108 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 02:40:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f65Gb7527668 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:37:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004901c1048a$0a60d280$4b4b5c18@midsouth.rr.com> References: <004901c1048a$0a60d280$4b4b5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:32:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I think that is the first thing I do when new opponents sit >down or I move in to their table. It is the perfect time to >say, "pard, 12-14 NT." Which, of course, you shouldn't *have* to say, because while you're looking at one copy of their card, your partner is looking at the other one. Right? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO0SYBL2UW3au93vOEQJ+0gCgttkV4rojzRD4c9QRrd733Tt958gAn3W6 GQgrU3bNw4oT0M3q+p6pdLfy =2lYO -----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 Jul 6 03:41:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65HfJR15329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 03:41:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f39.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f65HfEt15325 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 03:41:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:39:05 -0700 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:39:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:39:05 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jul 2001 17:39:05.0793 (UTC) FILETIME=[63480310:01C10579] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Ed Reppert > >I think that is the first thing I do when new opponents sit > >down or I move in to their table. It is the perfect time to > >say, "pard, 12-14 NT." > >Which, of course, you shouldn't *have* to say, because while you're >looking at one copy of their card, your partner is looking at the >other one. Right? :-) > I guess the beer arrives by itself in your club :) -- 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 Jul 6 04:46:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65IkBf15594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:46:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f65Ijut15575 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15IE7C-000CK0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:44:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:29:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules References: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$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: "Tim West-meads" > > >> I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of the >> opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth emphasising >> this. >> >> On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the >> EBU's). >> >I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids >something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my >hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do that >at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the policy >is illegal. I think the actual wording of L40E1 suggests it may be legal. -- 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 Jul 6 04:46:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65IkHM15597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:46:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65Ik0t15583 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:46:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15IE7H-000CKA-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:44:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:15:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A standard congress appeal References: <019f01c10399$c35cc100$84e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <019f01c10399$c35cc100$84e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >I wondered about this too. Richard's comments do seem >to be extremely logical, on the face of it. > >Now that I know who the hesitator was (after a tennis game with >the Director, then lunch today with a friend who happened to be >on the AC - this Appeal seems to be following me around), >I think my opposite view is OK. Am I allowed to be affected by >personal experience here? I partnered the hesitator in a couple >of events a while ago, and found him to be a deep thinker who >thinks about the oddest things. Thus I would accept his comment >that he was thinking about whether to play CQ or CA, partly >because there was little else to be thinking about (when you look >at the full hand, declarer is always going to attack diamonds next), >and partly because my inside info is that this is typical of him. Let us take Peter's evaluation of the player. He is a deep thinker, who thinks at the strangest times. Does that mean L73F2 does not apply? I would adjust anyway. L73F2 says: 'If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C).' In my view, thinking at unsuitable times is not a demonstrable bridge reason. >Should I have a word with him about trying to time his tanks >better? He ccould hardly have said that he was thinking about the >hand rather than the trick (because he wasn't), but he could have >thought at the traditional time - before dummy plays to Trick One. Just explain that he must expect to be ruled against because what he is doing is a breach of the proprieties. -- 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 Jul 6 04:46:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65IkCX15595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:46:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65Ijut15576 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:45:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15IE7C-000CJz-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:44:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:21:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final References: <20010702202633.71B102A529B@nyx.poczta.fm> <3B40EBBB.C409E228@elnet.msk.ru> <3.0.6.32.20010704134027.007e3100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3B43132F.1864218F@elnet.msk.ru> <3B43328F.4F4E6CC8@elnet.msk.ru> <3B43342E.D2436D2B@elnet.msk.ru> In-Reply-To: <3B43342E.D2436D2B@elnet.msk.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk vitold writes >2. Passing with strong hand after forcing opening is good as tactical call, >but whenever it becomes part of agreement - it should be alerted - for my >old-fashioned and grey-minded opinion. >Let's read WBF system policy: the system is HUM when "Pass in the opening >position promises the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, >and the player who passes will or may hold values a queen or more above >average strength (i.e. an average hand contains 10 HCP). >OK, it is not opening bid. So - right you are: it is not HUM in accordance >with definition. But it is HUM - in accordance with sense of play. Have >opponent rights to get to know the very unusual agreement? They have a right to know your agreements but that does not make it alertable. To be alertable it must be subject to the alerts of the SO. since the subject line refers to the ACBL I take it this is the ACBL. so it depends whether the pass is alertable in the ACBL. >4. Sorry, but on my opinion such non-alerted Pass is extremely severe >infraction (and happening in the discussed board only proves it - for me). Only if it is alertable. -- 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 Jul 6 04:46:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65IkIT15598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:46:19 +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-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 f65Ik2t15586 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:46:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15IE7I-000CK0-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:44:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 19:38:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable References: <001601c10470$e6ae10a0$aedd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <005d01c1047b$70f24a60$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <005d01c1047b$70f24a60$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >No matter how strong his language was, I am not going to believe that North >would insist on the wrong line of play after his partner has pointed out to him >how he should play. Not all of us wish to win by getting advantages from the Laws. If I knew I would only lead a heart I would says so: I would continue to say so when I discovered this is not to my advantage. The partners I play with would not criticise me in any way for this. -- 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 Jul 6 05:11:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65JB4121195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:11:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65JAvt21151 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:10:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA18783; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:08:20 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:08:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1058E.4DE2F920.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'David Stevenson'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:08:48 +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 suggested: I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" rather than "on the first round". Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? 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 Jul 6 05:11:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65JBm621446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:11:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f65JBft21408 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:11:42 +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 PAA13787 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09872 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:09:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107051909.PAA09872@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > To be alertable it must be subject to the alerts of the SO. > since the subject line refers to the ACBL I take it this is the ACBL. > so it depends whether the pass is alertable in the ACBL. Hmmm... I hadn't fully appreciated the subject line! So this deal was played in the ACBL, not in Poland? (That's a long way for those players to travel to play against each other!) So what are the ACBL rules? If our defense to an artificial, forcing 1C includes passing with: 1) all balanced hands, 2) weak, unbalanced hands ("weak" considering high cards, distribution, and vulnerability, of course), and 3) all very strong hands (say 16+ HCP), is the pass alertable in the ACBL? Of course 99% of the time (a guess, not a simulation), the hand will be in class 1 or 2, but does the rare possibility of 3 make the pass alertable? Is there anything else that would make the actual pass alertable in the ACBL? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 6 05:14:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65JEjC22355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:14:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65JEct22313 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:14:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA19459; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:12:02 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:12:30 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1058E.D1B85CE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'David Stevenson'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:12:29 +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 DWS suggested: I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" rather than "on the first round". Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? And if it does - then why not adopt 'do not alert doubles' as the WBF suggest? Surely 'alert all doubles' and 'do not alert doubles' amount to the same thing? 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 Jul 6 05:30:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65JTvv27108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:29:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65JTot27077 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:29:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA22919 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:27:40 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:28:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10591.01A3E6C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:28:08 +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 suggested: I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" rather than "on the first round". Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? And if it does - then why not adopt 'do not alert doubles' as the WBF suggest? Surely 'alert all doubles' and 'do not alert doubles' amount to the same thing? 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 Jul 6 06:02:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65K1J605869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:01:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65K0nt05798 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:00:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15IFHd-000KKx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:59:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 20:17:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A versus 66C References: <009d01c10563$e495ac80$52023dd4@nl.iae.nl> In-Reply-To: <009d01c10563$e495ac80$52023dd4@nl.iae.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >West leads in trick 5 the diamond 7. The other players play a card in turn >and the cards are quitted. >Declarer south now realizes that he did not pay sufficient attention to the >value of east's card and requires the players that all cards just played be >faced. The ops say kindly no on which declarer summons the TD. >Declarer now tells the TD that he is not sure anymore that he followed suit. >( south knows the rules ) because he forgot the lead. >Of course the TD could secretly inspect the cards of west and south and a >simple answer yes or no will do. >But is south with his argument entitled to see all the cards of trick 5? Of course not. No TD is going to let him see the cards. But there is a lot more to it than that. The player is telling lies so as to break a Law. If I suspected what he was actually doing I would hit him with a PP and put a report in to the national authority. Players do *not* lie to TDs - not with impunity, anyway. -- 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 Jul 6 07:12:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65LBjN19808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:11:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f65LBbt19765 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:11:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-219.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.219]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f65L9T222311 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:09:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <02d001c10597$5253aaa0$db3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200107031612.MAA23867@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3B4236C0.B6A10CEF@elnet.msk.ru> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:47:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > With some partners, I have discussed > > that a three-suited hand short in > > clubs may start with 2C and then redouble > > if the 2C bid is doubled. > > In these partnerships, the 2C bid probably > > should be alerted, but in > > practice I don't recall having ever used the bid with short clubs. > > (What does BLML think about alerting 2C in this case? I haven't > > done a simulation, but I bet it is long clubs 98-99% of the time.) I think that a) such 2C bids should be alerted and b) they are long clubs less than 80% of the time if *I* make them 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 Fri Jul 6 07:52:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f65Lqah03705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:52:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f65LqRt03657 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:52:28 +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, 5 Jul 2001 14:45:56 -0700 Message-ID: <010201c1059c$69781900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:40:21 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >> > >I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids > >something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my > >hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do that > >at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the policy > >is illegal. > > I think the actual wording of L40E1 suggests it may be legal. > L40E1 says an SO can set regulations regarding the use of a CC, but is a club an SO? Whatever, an SO cannot abrogate the right granted by L40E2 to "refer to his opponent's convention card at his own turn to call or play..." As with questioning the auction and hesitating after skip bids, consulting the opposing CC can be done in such a way that no UI is transmitted. Prohibiting the consultation of the opposing CC unless one acts after doing so is not the way to solve UI problems. 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 Fri Jul 6 13:18:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f663Gc520281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:16:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f663GQt20277 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:16:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f663Cw812076 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2001 23:12:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:27:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I guess the beer arrives by itself in your club :) Let's see, I play in three or four clubs around here. One's in a synagogue, one's in a church, and one is in the cafeteria of one of Kodak's buildings. The fourth one is in an American Legion hall, which is the only place that even *has* a bar. I've never seen any bridge players sitting at it or buying drinks at it, and I've certainly never seen any players at any of the clubs drinking anything alcoholic at a game. Seems not to be done around here. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO0UtCr2UW3au93vOEQLrWgCg9Yy/srSEvKtN3c3g6WAMFsEGR5wAoLJE PW+ns/W1plJCeTR5RKtWMJto =oeTX -----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 Jul 6 17:12:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f667CEc07253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:12:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta04.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f667C6t07211 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:12:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [210.84.84.225] by mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010706070959.ENKA12944.mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au@[210.84.84.225]>; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 17:09:59 +1000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20010706170612.006c802c@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@pop.ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 17:06:12 -0700 To: alain gottcheiner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or AI? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010704131953.007eeca0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20010703150811.00695b3c@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 01:19 PM 7/4/01 +0200, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 15:08 3/07/01 -0700, Reg Busch wrote: >>This bidding sequence occurred at a recent congress, using written bidding, >>in an uncontested auction >>North South >>1C 1H >>2C 2S. >>South now almost immediately crossed out her 2S bid and changed the bid to >>3H. North, holding a small doubleton spade, bid 3NT, makinmg 9 tricks for >>NS +400. Now, and not until now, the Director was called (by North!) who >>asked whether the 2S bid was AI. The Director ruled it was UI, and adjusted >>the score. >> >>Much as one would like to agree, I can't find a Law which supports this >>decision. Law 16C, the obvious reference, starts by saying 'A call or play >>may be withdrawn, and another substituted, either by a non-offending side >>after an oppnent's infraction or by an offending side to rectify an >>infraction...'. This was not the situation here. Law 25B (delayed or >>purposeful correction) says 'the substituted call may be accepted at the >>option of offender's LHO; then, the second call stands and the auction >>proceeds without penalty', but says nothing about AI or UI. > >AG : if the NOS fear that the 2S bid has given too much information, they >may disallow the 3H bid. Now the penalties and corections provided by >L25B2b will be enough to ensure that they aren't harmed. >AI vs UI is not an isue here, so the TD was wrong. RB: That would be so if the director was called at the time of the change of call. But he wasn't. > >>NS were reasonably experienced, EW less so. Both pairs were members of a >>club where a common attitude is that players calling the Director are just >>troublemakers! > >AG : that's where the shoe rubs. The TD should have : > >1) lectured both sides on their duties according to L9 and warned them that >penalties could be imposed (or even directly imposed penalties). Apply L11A >and 11C. RB: But this was my point. Law 9 does not require any player to call the Director when there has been an infraction - only when attention has been drawn to it. If attention has not been drawn to the infraction, then the Law does not *require* players to call the Director. One can't penalise here because not calling the Director was not a breach of Law. Even if the players knew that changing the 2S call was an infraction, they have no obligation to call unless attention has been drawn to it. Unless you take the view that the infraction itself per se draws attention to it. >2) let the score stand, because no law can apply to the case. L16C doesn't, >because there was no correction of infraction (a concept that applies to >what happens *after* the TD has explained the rules). > > > I would have had to reluctantly concede that the 2S bid was >>AI. One couldn't even penalise NS for a Law 9 breach because attention had >>not been drawn to the infraction! > >AG : this assumes that no player at the table knew it was an infraction. In >this case, change the lecture about L9 to another about L25. And there is >always L72A1 if they don't admit they did anything wrong. > >Perhaps we could adjust the score under >>72B ('could have known'). > >AG : this would be too severe. L72B should be reserved for cases where >there could have been malign intent. I deeply feel this is not the case here. > >Regards, > > Alain. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 6 19:26:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f669Pgo14024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:25:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f669PVt13971 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:25:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 67C6E2A4FDC; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:23:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 274B92A4F25 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:23:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 8501 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2001 09:23:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 6 Jul 2001 09:23:22 -0000 Message-ID: <3B4582DF.50206@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:20:31 +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] UI or AI? References: <3.0.1.32.20010703150811.00695b3c@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.20010706170612.006c802c@pop.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: feda0acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > RB: But this was my point. Law 9 does not require any player to call the > Director when there has been an infraction - only when attention has been > drawn to it. But L25 says that if a player fails to do it and bids on after his opponent changes his call then there is no penalty. > If attention has not been drawn to the infraction, then the > Law does not *require* players to call the Director. One can't penalise > here because not calling the Director was not a breach of Law. Even if the > players knew that changing the 2S call was an infraction, they have no > obligation to call unless attention has been drawn to it. Unless you take > the view that the infraction itself per se draws attention to it. West accepted the 3H call, didn't he? So according to L25B1 play proceeds normally and there is no penalty so 2S as AI to North. If WE were inexperienced and thought that they can always call the TD later on then I can offer them my sympathy but dura lex sed lex. Konrad Ciborowski ---------------------------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 Jul 6 19:27:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f669QxR14305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:26:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f669QVt14222 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 1A6AE2A50DB; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:24:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 968502A50C7 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:24:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 11349 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2001 09:24:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 6 Jul 2001 09:24:16 -0000 Message-ID: <3B458317.5050606@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:21:27 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] UI or AI? References: <3.0.1.32.20010703150811.00695b3c@pop.ozemail.com.au> <3.0.1.32.20010706170612.006c802c@pop.ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 780acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > RB: But this was my point. Law 9 does not require any player to call the > Director when there has been an infraction - only when attention has been > drawn to it. But L25 says that if a player fails to do it and bids on after his opponent changes his call then there is no penalty. > If attention has not been drawn to the infraction, then the > Law does not *require* players to call the Director. One can't penalise > here because not calling the Director was not a breach of Law. Even if the > players knew that changing the 2S call was an infraction, they have no > obligation to call unless attention has been drawn to it. Unless you take > the view that the infraction itself per se draws attention to it. West accepted the 3H call, didn't he? So according to L25B1 play proceeds normally and there is no penalty so 2S as AI to North. If WE were inexperienced and thought that they can always call the TD later on then I can offer them my sympathy but dura lex sed lex. Konrad Ciborowski ---------------------------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 Jul 6 19:57:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f669v9U21198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:57:09 +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 f669uxt21159 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:57:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA03650; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:51:22 +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 LAA07702; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:54:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010706115933.008173b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:59:33 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules In-Reply-To: References: <004901c1048a$0a60d280$4b4b5c18@midsouth.rr.com> <004901c1048a$0a60d280$4b4b5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:32 5/07/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >>I think that is the first thing I do when new opponents sit >>down or I move in to their table. It is the perfect time to >>say, "pard, 12-14 NT." > >Which, of course, you shouldn't *have* to say, because while you're >looking at one copy of their card, your partner is looking at the >other one. Right? :-) AG : wrong ! Usually, one player of the pair is in charge with this procedure, and it's his duty is to steer the partnership's defenses in one way or another. 'partner, they play 2D as a major 2-suiter. Remember, over this, we play such-and-such'. But, really, as long as non-standard (for the country) NT openings are alerted, no problem should arise. No alert, standard meaning. Alert, ask. After all, they could play 1NT as showing hearts (Vernes' 'major first') or both majors (net) or whatever, so asking and passing doesn't give away information. This, of course, is absolutely safe if one follows a policy of always asking if there is an alert at the first turn, which I recommend once more. 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 Jul 6 20:01:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66A1lT22567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:01:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f66A1et22529 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA15520; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:59:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA10701; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:59:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010706120413.008239e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 12:04:13 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final In-Reply-To: <200107051909.PAA09872@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:09 5/07/01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >So what are the ACBL rules? If our defense to an artificial, forcing >1C includes passing with: > >1) all balanced hands, >2) weak, unbalanced hands ("weak" considering high cards, distribution, > and vulnerability, of course), and >3) all very strong hands (say 16+ HCP), > >is the pass alertable in the ACBL? Of course 99% of the time (a guess, >not a simulation), the hand will be in class 1 or 2, but does the rare >possibility of 3 make the pass alertable? > >Is there anything else that would make the actual pass alertable in the >ACBL? AG : good point. Say your pass over opponents' 1C opening means : a) weak hand b) balaznced hand up to 13 HCP c) clubs as the main suit, up to 18 HCP Is this alertable ? I hope it isn't, because that's what it means in classical bidding. So much for the 'highly artificial' meaning ... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 6 20:59:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66AxU429862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:59:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f66AxKt29855 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:59:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ITJ4-0009gb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:58:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:48:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C10591.01A3E6C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C10591.01A3E6C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes >DWS suggested: > > I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" >rather than "on the first round". > > >Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? > >And if it does - then why not adopt 'do not alert doubles' as the WBF suggest? >Surely 'alert all doubles' and 'do not alert doubles' amount to the same thing? Having read this follow-up it now occurs to me that you are serious. What on earth would be the point of alerting all doubles? No, I mean alert doubles through opener's rebid according to some rule or other, as suits the relevant SO. Perhaps alert all doubles except takeout doubles in an EBU-type SO, and alert all non-standard doubles in an ACBL-type SO. -- 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 Jul 6 20:59:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66AxUV29863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:59:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f66AxKt29854 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 20:59:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ITJ3-0009ga-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:58:03 +0100 Message-ID: <9nmBZDFjHNR7Ewo8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 21:45:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C1058E.4DE2F920.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1058E.4DE2F920.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes >DWS suggested: > > I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" >rather than "on the first round". > > >Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? No, Fergie. Quango wants to know if that is called Irish alerting? -- 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 Jul 6 22:31:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66CUn607176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:30:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f66CUft07130 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:30:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA58408 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:28:28 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:28:57 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1061F.9C24E120.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] RE: Asking about an Alert Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:28:55 +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 | | | Is there anyway we can allow players to ask about an alerted call without hanging partner? | This is a catch 22 situation for most players: If they don't ask they may lose the protection of the TD and | if they do ask they will lose their good score if partner does something brilliant. | | | Any takers on this one? | I seem to recall that the TD is asked to show sympathy to hesitations in later stages of the auction or in unusual complicated auctions. Could there be a similar suggestion here namely: that asking about an alerted call does not create as much UI as asking about an unalerted call? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 6 22:43:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66CgXZ10505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:42:33 +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 f66CgCt10442 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 22:42:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-011.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.203]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA61585 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:40:00 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:40:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10621.38C66CA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:40:28 +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 writes >DWS suggested: > > I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" >rather than "on the first round". > > >Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? DWS replied: No, Fergie. Quango wants to know if that is called Irish alerting? Very funny. Irish alerting is trying to re-define itself - hence my reason for starting this thread. So going back to your suggestion: > I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" >rather than "on the first round". means 1. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid, or, 2. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid. However a double of 'one of a suit' opening bid need not be alerted if it is take-out, or, 3. other. All assistance greatly appreciated. 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 Jul 6 23:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66D2ff11614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:02:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f137.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f66D2Jt11607 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:00:08 -0700 Received: from 172.149.80.150 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:00:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.149.80.150] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Beer (Was: [BLML] Club Rules) Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 06:00:08 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2001 13:00:08.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[95A5F6D0:01C1061B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've seen no drinking at clubs in Seattle, but for one club in Portland there may be wine or beer. It's usually only brought when there's a party, say, for someone leaving town, club's birthday, cinco de mayo, etc. -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 Jul 6 23:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66DcJ711741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:38:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f66DcCt11737 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:38:13 +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 15IVlz-000GH6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:35:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:11:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules References: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <010201c1059c$69781900$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010201c1059c$69781900$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 wrote: >> >> >> >I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids >> >something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my >> >hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do >that >> >at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the >policy >> >is illegal. >> >> I think the actual wording of L40E1 suggests it may be legal. >> >L40E1 says an SO can set regulations regarding the use of a CC, but is a >club an SO? Of course: who else? I presume that the ACBL does not arrange coffee making in clubs? appoint the Director? set the fees? >Whatever, an SO cannot abrogate the right granted by L40E2 to "refer to his >opponent's convention card at his own turn to call or play..." Well, there you go. Horse races and people and all that. I still think you might consider the wording of both Laws rather than just the one that supports your 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 Sat Jul 7 01:13:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66FDMB12039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 01:13:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f66FDDt12035 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 01:13:14 +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 15IXG1-000ASj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:11:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 15:56:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C10621.38C66CA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C10621.38C66CA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Fearghal O'Boyle writes >>DWS suggested: >> >> I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" >>rather than "on the first round". >> >> >>Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? > >DWS replied: > No, Fergie. > > Quango wants to know if that is called Irish alerting? > > >Very funny. Irish alerting is trying to re-define itself - hence my reason >for starting this thread. > >So going back to your suggestion: >> I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" >>rather than "on the first round". >means > >1. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid, or, >2. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid. However a double >of 'one of a suit' opening bid need not be alerted if it is take-out, or, >3. other. Other. It means you decide in what way you think doubles should be alerted to be most helpful to opponents and to be memorable and understandable. Then you make that the rule, but add at the end "All doubles after opener's rebid are not alertable". I was making no comment as to the best rule for alerting doubles otherwise. I think that depends really on alerting overall. For example, Australian alerting rules are pretty simple: American alerting rules a re very complex. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Since Ireland is not one of the 13 NCBOs for whom I have the alerting regs I cannot advise further. If you like to send me the current Irish alerting rules I could probably make some sensible suggestions. -- 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 Jul 7 02:48:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66GlYr20814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:47:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f66GlPt20809 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 02:47:26 +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 ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:40:56 -0700 Message-ID: <01b901c1063a$eeb20b00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C10621.38C66CA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:34:42 -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" > > 1. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid, or, > 2. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid. However a double > of 'one of a suit' opening bid need not be alerted if it is take-out, or, > 3. other. > > All assistance greatly appreciated. > Alert all non-penalty doubles after partner has acted, at any level. Simple. Tougher is determining which doubles need Alerting when partner has not acted. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 7 04:11:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66IAYP07909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 04:10:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f66IARt07882 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 04:10:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.17.1]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010706180818.RDDU295.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:08:18 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c10647$8056c760$0111ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <01C10621.38C66CA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:14:29 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think you'll find some of the Irish alerting regulations in the WBU diary. I hope you have one of those David :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles > Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >>DWS suggested: > >> > >> I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" > >>rather than "on the first round". > >> > >> > >>Does this mean 'alert all doubles'? > > > >DWS replied: > > No, Fergie. > > > > Quango wants to know if that is called Irish alerting? > > > > > >Very funny. Irish alerting is trying to re-define itself - hence my reason > >for starting this thread. > > > >So going back to your suggestion: > >> I am convinced that doubles should be alerted "through opener's rebid" > >>rather than "on the first round". > >means > > > >1. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid, or, > >2. alert all non-penalty doubles through opener's rebid. However a double > >of 'one of a suit' opening bid need not be alerted if it is take-out, or, > >3. other. > > Other. It means you decide in what way you think doubles should be > alerted to be most helpful to opponents and to be memorable and > understandable. Then you make that the rule, but add at the end "All > doubles after opener's rebid are not alertable". > > I was making no comment as to the best rule for alerting doubles > otherwise. I think that depends really on alerting overall. For > example, Australian alerting rules are pretty simple: American alerting > rules a re very complex. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Since > Ireland is not one of the 13 NCBOs for whom I have the alerting regs I > cannot advise further. > > If you like to send me the current Irish alerting rules I could > probably make some sensible suggestions. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 7 04:48:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66IlkR20801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 04:47:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f66Ilbt20766 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 04:47:38 +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 TAA68579 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:45:25 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:45:54 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10654.44A26F00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:45:53 +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 Anne wrote: I think you'll find some of the Irish alerting regulations in the WBU diary. I hope you have one of those David :-) How did we get there? 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 Jul 7 06:09:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66K97F03828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 06:09:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f66K8xt03782 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 06:09:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.5.166]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010706200651.TSUZ283.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:06:51 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c10658$106c3460$a605ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <01C10654.44A26F00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 21:13:03 +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: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 7:45 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles > Anne wrote: > I think you'll find some of the Irish alerting regulations in the WBU > diary. I hope you have one of those David :-) > > > How did we get there? > By accident - lol :-))) Cheers Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 7 09:00:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66MxT500396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 08:59:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f66MxIt00346 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 08:59:19 +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 15IeYu-0009EX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:59:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:46:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Not Alerting Doubles References: <01C10621.38C66CA0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000e01c10647$8056c760$0111ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000e01c10647$8056c760$0111ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >I think you'll find some of the Irish alerting regulations in the WBU >diary. I hope you have one of those David :-) No, I don't, but I remember hearing that! :) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 7 09:00:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f66MxPm00380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 08:59:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f66MxFt00327 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2001 08:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15IeYu-0009EZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:59:02 +0100 Message-ID: <$bkO3iEIIkR7Ewbc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 23:56:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Brighton Appeals MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You may remember that the Appeals from Brighton were posted on the website at about the end of February. There were a few mistakes, complicated by my hospital stays, but eventually the third edition had them all sorted out. For technical reasons [so says the EBU] the third edition, while on the website, was not available - until today!!!!! So if you want your copy of the Brighton appeals to be the correct one, go to http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec For your information I have been given the go-ahead to do the Brighton 2001 appeals [plus any from our Spring Foursomes] and will be looking for volunteers for the Commentary. It requires a compassionate approach [ie nothing like the NABC Appeals booklets] and pays you nothing!!!! Volunteers will be gratefully accepted. -- 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 Jul 9 03:06:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f68H48u09668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:04:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f68H3Ut09450 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:03:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-41-101.frankfurt.gigabell.net [194.29.41.101] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f68H1K205057 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2001 19:01:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000801c107d0$26af4fe0$65291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <$bkO3iEIIkR7Ewbc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 19:04:41 +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 "David Stevenson" wrote: > You may remember that the Appeals > from Brighton were posted on the > website at about the end of February. There were a few mistakes, > complicated by my hospital stays, but eventually the third edition had > them all sorted out. > > For technical reasons [so says the EBU] the third edition, while on > the website, was not available - until today!!!!! > > So if you want your copy of the Brighton appeals to be the correct > one, go to > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec It seems to me that the directors and ACs in Brighton did a fine job. As always, there are a few close decisions which could have been made different, but all decisions were reasonable. I also like the format, for example the fact that the booklet always names the laws and regulations which were applied by the TD. 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 Jul 9 11:11:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f691ARW20424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:10:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f691ALt20420 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:10:21 +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 VAA11183 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:16:27 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk With apologies to all with Thread-on-Reference email readers, because I'm going to break a whole bunch of 'em :-). I'll try to make sure Thread-on-Subject works, though, as I reply to stuff from the web-history from when my email address was off the air. [Side note - Sorry Markus. Planet Three went under without warning to me, so the entire .cx domain was unresolvable for a week. Needless to say, that must have meant many bounces to you, without any warning. I hope it stays up for a long while this time. mdf] ------- Ed Reppert: >I perceive these defects with the ACBL CC: > >1. There should be a front page with certain always (or often) needed >information: general system, 1NT range, some other stuff. Similar to >the EBU practice. Done, I think - the top right corner, if properly filled out, does this. "General System", Forcing Bids, NT range. Might be nice to have a section for "calls likely needing defence" like nearly everyone else; but given the standard ACBL pairs' use of the one-line for "general system", I can't expect much from their opinion of what "likely needs defence". My usual two cards: "Gadgety Standard Canadian: Weak NT" and "EHAA - Kamikaze NT, Highly Undisciplined 2 bids, Very Sound 1-suit calls" However, frequently we play against: "" or "2/1" or "SA" (Once, I put with a new partner (a decent junior, who would appreciate the lowbrow sense of humour) a general system of "N.F.C. 2/1" I was hoping someone would ask. Finally (about the 6th round of a Swiss) partner asked "What's N.F.C.?" I replied "I have no idea." The whole table got it - eventually - and a very funny, pleasant game ensued.) >2. The card as presently designed is difficult to properly fill out >for forcing club systems, and for some other conventions. Yep. The PTB keep saying "a card suitable for Forcing Club [ok, they say Precision - mdf] will be avaiable soon", after this point is brought up every time the card gets changed. Still haven't seen it. Unfortunate, really - there's a great deal of difference between a forcing Club system and a "could be short" (even as short as 1) system; and it should be available on the card, so that the poor opps need not remind their opponents about their system. Maybe I should make one - frankly,when I needed one, I just wiped out the whole box, and replaced it with a 1D box (small) and a 1C box (large). >4. The score card should *not* be included on the >back of the CC. Period. Exclamation point. Ok, this is my bugbear. Damnit, there is no reason besides marketing (i.e. we won't sell as many CCs if they're only used for making CCs) why that scorecard is there. Having a 2-sided scorecard is cheaper, better for all concerned, and less wasteful. And once they do that, they can use the other side of the CC for...CC? How about more detailed information about obscure parts of the system that need no more than a footnote on the front? But it's tradition - ACBLers are herdminded to believe that a CC's primary use is to hide their scorecard. >6. Yes, I know one can edit a computer generated CC so that space can >made for one's unique system. But (a) the only CC editor of which I'm >aware is windows only, so (b) editing a CC on a Mac or L*nix platform >isn't all that easy, and (c) doing so at a game, when you've >forgotten your usual card, is impossible. > There's a few, and they are all M$-based. Or you can edit the .BMP (hmm, more MSing, but at least other things can read it) One point: Either *nix or Lin*x, please. Mr. Torvalds isn't Lunis, after all. And *nix is that way for a reason that doesn't apply to Linux (it's not just hiding the evil from sensitive eyes, like O*tl**k or Fr***P***). Hmm (wonders if Lee Edwards' CCE works under WINE...) What annoys me, despite what Marv thinks (and if he really does turn the card over to the useful side all the time, many thanks, and that's *one*) is that just because the card looks good folded in half, that it should be. First, it no longer lies flat, so you can't put anything on top of it (like the bidding box, for instance?); second it is almost impossible to read at a glance once there's 20CCs and 30 scorecards in there, because of the bend in the silly holder (and the cracks damaging the thing by keeping it bent over a 1/2 inch of paper), so I have to pick the thing up anyway. The card lays nicely flat on the right-hand corner. I put my bidding box on top of the carding during the auction, and move it somewhere else when I'm defending. And I'm on my second holder in 5 years - and that's the cheap giveaways I've got at regionals. The other one is still upstairs, where I can use it if needed - it's perfectly serviceable, just that the top right corner is split about an inch, and it stabbed me once, so I replaced it. And unlike some others, I think I can score my non-bent card w/o passing my scores to everyone else (helps that I'm left-handed, of course). Now, if we could teach people that their personal scorecard is less important than the official one... Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 11:27:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f691Qtf20444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:26:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f691Qnt20440 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:26:49 +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 VAA11461 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:32:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107090132.VAA11461@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A "could have known" from the Vanderbilt final Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:32:55 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ok, all -----> the way off topic. Adam Beneshan: >>Just how the heck do you pronounce "Pszczola"? Konrad Ciborowski: >Oh, my. OK, let's try: > >sz - this pair of letters in Polish is pronounced in more or less the > same way as "sh" in English >cz - this is pronounced as "ch" in English >l - this letter is not "l" as the matter of fact "?" (you have to change > to ISO-2 coding to see it); that's the l with a slash through it, right? Is there a regular "l" in Polish, or can I assume that any "l" I see transcribed into a diacritical-poor journal is this character? >So here we go, fasten your seat belts, insure your jaws before you try: > >P sh ch o w a > Ok, so how many syllables? Does it break "Psz-czol/-a"? And does that mean that the common familiarity-showing diminuative of my name is spelled Michasz? >Alternatively you can take some easier course: "pszczola" in Polish >means "bee" and "kwiecien" means "April". April - Bee is much easier >to pronounce for the rest of the world, I guess :-) Well, yes, but people are going to get really confused when we talk about A-B, while still referring to B-Z. While we're at it, how does one pronounce "Kwiecien"? I think I have a handle on Balicki/Zmudzinski/Gawrys/Wilkosz/Ciborowski (ok, a very Canadian-accented handle :-), but that one stumps me. At least I can take heart in the fact that around 1/4 of the world's population is totally stumped on my last name (and the majority of the English-speaking population can't spell it. Not their fault - it is a mis-spelling, after all). Michael Farebrother -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 11:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f691o0220463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:50:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f691nst20459 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:49:54 +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 VAA11680 for ; Sun, 8 Jul 2001 21:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107090156.VAA11680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:56:00 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" >> I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of the >> opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth emphasising >> this. >> Well, my problem with the policy is that I look at CC after 1NT - almost religiously (unless I already know from experience (long experience, at that - I have a well-trained poor memory for things I can look up, unless they come up often enough for it to be worth it to me to remember) - to find out what the rest of the NT system is like. That way I don't have to ask next round after it goes 1NT-2S; 3C. Also, though it may or may not be completely legal (classic Chicken-Egg), I do base my interference strategy on their response structure. I am more likely to be aggressive in overcalling if they aren't playing Lebensohl, for instance, or if they have a gadget to show a hand I'm worried about LHO having. I guess if I played at the Barrington, I'd learn to add that stuff to the things I pick off the CC at the beginning of the round. It's a lot of stuff to remember, however. >> On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the >> EBU's). >> >I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids >something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my >hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do >that at the Barrington. For one specific instance where looking frequently passes UI. I'm surprised that someone who is as vociferous about the ubiquity of the pro question does not see the similarity. Yes, a glance is less obvious, but I'm sure the pro could train client to look at the CC every time he did - or a pair could engage in Weasel vs strong NT by selectively looking at the CC. And Alan couldn't sanely go the other way and force people to look every time, could he? >Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the policy is illegal. L40E1 (I know, not 2) says specifically "SOs may establish rules for their use", and if one of those rules is "look at the card in this situation and you will be deemed to have passed UI (of whatever sort is common)" then use youir L40E2 rights all you want, but remember that you *do* pass UI (though less, *usually*, than asking does), and do put partner under obligations. Even if the UI you're passing is different than what "everyone" does, you're in tough luck this time if you hand happens to meet the requirements for a "everyone" look, and partner doesn't follow L16/73. Having said all that - when the policy leaves the club, and I start seeing it at my tournaments, I'll gripe - not because it's illegal, but it's the wrong solution to the problem. As Chris said, the real solution is to Announce all NT ranges. Then, maybe, we can get back to looking at the CC being for information one doesn't already have (and if it's being used as a flag, then we nail 'em). Michael -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 12:57:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f692uZ013009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:56:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.0.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f692uTt12975 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id C2DB7981D1; Sun, 8 Jul 2001 22:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000801c107d0$26af4fe0$65291dc2@rabbit> References: <$bkO3iEIIkR7Ewbc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000801c107d0$26af4fe0$65291dc2@rabbit> Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 19:54:04 -0700 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 7:04 PM +0200 7/8/01, Thomas Dehn wrote: >I also like the format, for example the fact that the >booklet always names the laws and regulations >which were applied by the TD. Here, here! This should be a prerequisite for all writeups. It is not yet universal - I'm always pleased to see it applied. In some cases I've been told by an editor that the director did not tell the committee which laws were applied, or the committee did not discuss particular laws during their deliberation, so the scribe had none to report. I view the job of the scribe as in part to require this information from the committee. This means a scribe, even if not a committee member, need not keep silent. There are at least two benefits to this behavior. One is that writeups become more educational. Another is that, simply by asking a question, a scribe may avert a decision that has no basis in law. Note that even a correct final decision serves no didactic purpose if it is not made according to the laws. -- AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 17:24:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f697Nlt07266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:23:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f697Net07262 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:23:41 +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, 9 Jul 2001 09:22:55 +0200 Message-ID: <008f01c10847$f760c8e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010705091243.00aaa120@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:22:51 +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 f697Nht07263 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I already wrote earlier that IMO NS should get their trick, if only for the fact that South deserves to get it. I showed the case to a friend and he immediately suggested a split score: 'At least until North gets quiet.' ;o) Rik ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable > At 08:30 AM 7/4/01, Martin wrote: > > >alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > > >AG : there is nothing in the Laws that ask us to consider whether > > the Club > > >was a normal play *for this player*, only whether it was a normal play. > > >Obviously it was. The TD has to consider this case, which results in 1 > > >trick to N/S. And this holds true even if East knew there was an > > >outstanding trump. He could have miscounted the hand and thought > > North had > > >nothing but hearts. If I had to bet on an explanation for his faulty > > claim, > > >I would choose the latter. > > > >Of course it doesn't matter whether North plays clubs or hearts. North > >plays a heart, declarer ruffs the next heart and ruffs a spade with the > >DJ. Not irrational, since NS have no trumps according to East. So South > >gets his trump trick anyway. > > I don't accept this argument; I think it's "normal" to ruff small when > one thinks there are no trump out, just as it's "normal" to play suits > from the top down when one thinks there are no more out in the > suit. If we were attempting to come up with guidelines for what > constitutes "normal" play, I would include this. > > In the actual situation, I agree with Alain. Declarer loses the trick > because he claimed a trick that he might not get on a possible "normal" > play by North; the fact that North would not have found the play at the > table 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 17:36:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f697aJf07279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:36:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f697aDt07275 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:36:14 +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, 9 Jul 2001 09:35:30 +0200 Message-ID: <011301c10849$b933d060$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:35:27 +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 f697aGt07276 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Tim West-meads" > > > > >> I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of the > >> opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth emphasising > >> this. > >> > >> On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the > >> EBU's). > >> > >I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids > >something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my > >hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do that > >at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the policy > >is illegal. > > I think the actual wording of L40E1 suggests it may be legal. > It is generally accepted that a specific law overrules a general rule. That means that L40E1 ('The SO may regulate the use of a CC') is outranked by L40E2 which gives opponents the specific right to look at the CC. 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 Mon Jul 9 22:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69CWfN18424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:32:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f69CWYt18382 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:32:35 +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 OAA29022; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:29:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA10781; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:30:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010709143506.00821e70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 14:35:06 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Beer (Was: [BLML] Club Rules) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:00 6/07/01 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > I've seen no drinking at clubs in Seattle, but for one club in Portland >there may be wine or beer. It's usually only brought when there's a party, >say, for someone leaving town, club's birthday, cinco de mayo, etc. AG : very strange In Belgium, most bridge clubs have their own bar, or they are part of generalist sport clubs which have. Which means drinks are quite come-at-able, including beer and wine. And the average Belgian is quite fond of beer. It also means most clubs remain open a more or less long period after the tournament, which we dub 'the third halftime' and isn't a dry period -litotes. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 23:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69D3qP29603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:03:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69D3jt29563 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:03:46 +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 PAA06904; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:01:06 +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 PAA29842; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:01:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010709150614.00824810@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:06:14 +0200 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules In-Reply-To: <200107090156.VAA11680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Having said all that - when the policy leaves the club, and I start >seeing it at my tournaments, I'll gripe - not because it's illegal, but >it's the wrong solution to the problem. As Chris said, the real >solution is to Announce all NT ranges. Then, maybe, we can get back to >looking at the CC being for information one doesn't already have (and if >it's being used as a flag, then we nail 'em). AG : it's very difficult for any pair to know what, in their system, will be if interest for their opponents. It would thus be difficult to know what to pre-alert. For example, I know of some pairs who have the same defense against weak and strong NT, but different defenses to Acol and 5c-major 1C openings. Neither of those two is alertable, of course, but one has to know. The opponents will never think of it. And there are specific treatments against which I have specific defenses : different defenses vs standard Drury and Drury-fit, vs fit-showing jumps and Bergen raises, vs Michaels and Ghestem cue-bids, vs Landy and Astro, etc. Am I expected to check all this in advance ? Of course not. I then have to either ask or check the CC after the alert. It seems unavoidable, but transmits little information, if you systematically look / ask. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 9 23:05:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69D58Z00029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:05:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f69D52t29992 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:05:02 +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 OAA14971; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:59:19 +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 PAA00641; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 15:02:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010709150734.0081b600@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:07:34 +0200 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable In-Reply-To: <008f01c10847$f760c8e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010705091243.00aaa120@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 09:22 9/07/01 +0200, Rik Terveen wrote: >I already wrote earlier that IMO NS should get their trick, if only for the fact that South deserves to get it. I showed the case to a friend and he immediately suggested a split score AG: yes, a split score. South gets one trick, North doesn't. Does your computer provide for such scores ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 01:46:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69Fiur10170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 01:44:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f69Fimt10133 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 01:44:49 +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 LAA25824 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA22883 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:42:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:42:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: Michael Farebrother > L40E1 (I know, not 2) says specifically "SOs may establish rules for > their use", and if one of those rules is "look at the card in this > situation and you will be deemed to have passed UI (of whatever sort is > common)" then use youir L40E2 rights all you want, but remember that you > *do* pass UI (though less, *usually*, than asking does), and do put > partner under obligations. That would probably be OK, but as I understand Alan's rule, he imposes an automatic PPf whenever someone looks at the CC or asks a question. The legality of this regulation is still not clear, though. The WBFLC says the "not in conflict with these Laws" applies _only_ to regulations made under authority of L80F. If that's the case, a regulation under L40E1 would still be legal even if it conflicts with L40E2. Of course the practical rule is that an SO can do whatever it wants. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 03:34:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69HXZb17137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:33:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69HXSt17099 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:33:29 +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 NAA23288 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:39:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107091739.NAA23288@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010709150614.00824810@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010709150614.00824810@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:39:32 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 9 July 2001 at 15:06, alain gottcheiner wrote: >> >>Having said all that - when the policy leaves the club, and I start >>seeing it at my tournaments, I'll gripe - not because it's illegal, but >>it's the wrong solution to the problem. As Chris said, the real >>solution is to Announce all NT ranges. Then, maybe, we can get back to >>looking at the CC being for information one doesn't already have (and if >>it's being used as a flag, then we nail 'em). > >AG : it's very difficult for any pair to know what, in their system, will >be if interest for their opponents. It would thus be difficult to know what >to pre-alert. For example, I know of some pairs who have the same defense >against weak and strong NT, but different defenses to Acol and 5c-major 1C >openings. Neither of those two is alertable, of course, but one has to >know. The opponents will never think of it. [rest of examples snipped] Of course - there will never be a time when the CC is unnecessary. But in this case, a very specific problem is being addressed - the "what's your NT range" question that transmits UI. Before Announcements, here in the ACBL (other SOs have different ways of dealing with this problem - I happen to like the EBU's, and personally consider *myself* bound by them, even here - but not my opponents) Weasel vs. weak NT was a very common defence. It goes something like this: Pass immediately: 0-6. Pass after some thought: 6-10 or so, or playable in at least one suit opposite a cooperative double. Ask, then pass: an aggressive overcall of a strong NT (if they're playing DONT), or an hand almost worth overcalling, say 11-13 or so. Ask, then double: Cooperative. Partner is expected to take it out without significant values. Double immediately: Penalty. Similar meanings are given to "ask, then overcall" vs "overcall immediately" to help partner decide on game possibilities. Now, if the NT range isn't completely within 15-18HCP, the range must be Announced by partner of the NT bidder. This tends to defeat the Weasel defence, because it removes the "what's your range" inquiry - from a weak NT. There are a lot of people who now ask the range on an unAnnounced NT. Their two common arguments, if questioned on this (by the TD) are either "I wanted to make sure they didn't forget to Announce" (and, if the opponents are playing a variable NT, this is sometimes a legitimate gripe - I mean, they Announced the last NT opening, why not this one?) or "I wanted to know if it was 15-17 or 16-18". However, a lot of them are (usually unknowingly) playing Weasel. The solution to the first question is "if they failed to Announce, and you were damaged by it, you will get redress. Please do not ask, as unscrupulous pairs will ask to pass UI, and the Laws force me to treat your question as if you were one of those pairs - even though I know you aren't". The Barrington policy is an attempt to stamp out the second question, by ruling that there is no useful difference between 15-17, 15-18, and 16-18 when considering a direct overcall of a strong NT, and therefore, any question about this will be treated as passing UI about your hand to partner. In other words, "You can't say you 'couldn't have known' this - we're making it quite clear up front." Now, none of us have a problem with this - so far. Especially as the question is expressly freed of UI implications if made at any other time than directly over the opening. After all, the difference between 15-17 and 16-18 is important in the play, if not before. But the Barrington policy then goes on to say that a look at the opponents' CC at this point will be considered equivalent to "asking the range question" for UI purposes. I guess they had a problem with people, when being told that they are not allowed to ask "the question", instead asked to see the CC (in their mind, because they need the answer, I'm sure) and passed the same UI to partner. Those of us grumbling about equating the two are doing so because there are other, valid reasons to want to see the CC after a NT opener - i.e. to understand their response structure. This leads to my comment that "I'll have to remember the NT structure" if playing at the Barrington, and the "solution is to Announce all (not just non-(15-18)) 1NT openers" bit, too. And, unlike the snipped examples, 1NT standard strong is not Alertable in the ACBL. The jurisprudence has long considered queries after an Alerted call to be less UI-transmitting than those after a non-Alerted call, especiallly in the ACBL, where a query to the Alert is expected, even in situations where it won't help the opponents. Hope this helps put the historical perspective on things. Basically we're battling a fight just as long-standing and just as nasty as your "Ghestem misbid" battle. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 03:53:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69HqrA23882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:52:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69Hqjt23842 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:52:46 +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 NAA23566 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107091758.NAA23566@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] EBU OB 3.41 question Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:58:46 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk While replying to Alain, I got thinking about another disputable UI situation - the EBU "ask and pass" regulation. And this question came to mind: "Is 'ask, then pass' treated as harshly, if pass is conventional?" My example, as always in discussions of this policy is 1C-1D-1H-2D; 2H-p-4D-?. In my system, if 4D is a splinter, then X=lead clubs, P=either lead spades or neutral (i.e. not encouraging a club lead). If, however, 4D is anything else, including a control cuebid that is either honour or shortness, then X=Don't lead diamonds, P=neutral or encouraging in diamonds (i.e. not discouraging a diamond lead). Pass is obviously conventional, in that it passes (negative) information unrelated to "I don't have strength to compete here"; but does ask and pass automatically set L73 in motion in the EBU, even though there is real, positive AI passed by the Pass call? Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 04:13:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69ICmN00850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:12:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69ICgt00816 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:12:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f69IBYa18991 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000e01c108a2$60d23e80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:09:02 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > Of course the practical rule is that an SO can do whatever it wants. Is that right? While there are a few ACBL regulations that are optional with clubs (notably the Stop/Skip regulation), most are not. Specifically, the ACBL instructions for the CC start with, "First a few miscellaneous things about the use of ACBL Convention Cards in ACBL tournaments." Following this are the requirements for names at the top, two identical copies, legible, and on the table. I don't believe that any ACBL-franchised game is exempt from these regulations, even though a "game" is not a "tournament." I'll ask Gary. How can an SO stop me from seeing what's on the opposing CC if it is in plain view all the time, as required? Of course at Alan's club the general practice is to hide one's card so it can't be seen. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 10 04:34:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69IXmJ08307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:33:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69IXXt08219 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:33:41 +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 OAA24322 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:39:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107091839.OAA24322@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 14:39:31 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 9 July 2001 at 11:42, Steve Willner wrote: >From: Michael Farebrother >> L40E1 (I know, not 2) says specifically "SOs may establish rules for >> their use", and if one of those rules is "look at the card in this >> situation and you will be deemed to have passed UI (of whatever sort is >> common)" then use youir L40E2 rights all you want, but remember that you >> *do* pass UI (though less, *usually*, than asking does), and do put >> partner under obligations. > >That would probably be OK, but as I understand Alan's rule, he imposes >an automatic PPf whenever someone looks at the CC or asks a question. > >From the way I read the policy (and all the information I have comes from Marv's post of the policy to BLML, archived at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/archives/ bridge-laws.0107/Subject/article-62.html ), if you ask, yes, that generates the auto PPf. But if you look at the CC, it just invokes a EBU-like "ask and pass" interpretation of 4th hand's actions. The quotes I can see: "After a 1NT opening bid, any inquiry as to range by the RHO of the NT opener will receive a 1/4 board procedural penalty." and "If a player chooses to examine the convention card after a 1NT opening bid and then takes no immediate action, the directors will address this issue as one where unauthorized information has been made available." >The legality of this regulation is still not clear, though. The WBFLC >says the "not in conflict with these Laws" applies _only_ to >regulations made under authority of L80F. If that's the case, a >regulation under L40E1 would still be legal even if it conflicts with >L40E2. > Well, given that an SO "may", but need not, prescribe a CC at all - i.e. may choose not to, thus invalidating L40E2 in toto - I can't see how simply saying "an opponents' CC does not exist immediately after the following auction" could be illegal. It is amusing to see what happens when Weasel vs. NT starts being seen to be effective against strong NTs instead of just "us young rabblerousers". Having lived through the check CC - "What's the range?" - "Pass" days while playing a 12-14 NT, I now get to sit back and nod my head like a wise old (32!) bird. I frankly have no problems with the policy as written, except for the fact that it would cause me a little needless memory strain, and of course, the fact that it is an obvious kludge, where a simple, easy fix is available (but inadvisable for club-only implementation, as these players with these trained habits will go out into the tournament world and get their ears pinned back for forgetting). Apologies to Alan LeBendig and the owners and players at the Bennington for munging their club name in previous posts. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 06:52:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69Kq3d17636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:52:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69Kput17632 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:51:57 +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 f69Koka19153; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:50:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006801c108b8$9f114b80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:48:30 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > > The legality of this regulation is still not clear, though. The WBFLC > says the "not in conflict with these Laws" applies _only_ to > regulations made under authority of L80F. If that's the case, a > regulation under L40E1 would still be legal even if it conflicts with > L40E2. > > Of course the practical rule is that an SO can do whatever it wants. Except violate ACBL regulations when not given the option to do so. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 10 06:52:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69KqXH17642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:52:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f69KqRt17638 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 06:52:28 +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 f69Koka19146; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006701c108b8$9ec50040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Rik Terveen" , "BLML" References: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <011301c10849$b933d060$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:45:29 -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: "Rik Terveen" > > From: David Stevenson <> > > > Marvin L. French writes > > >From: "Tim West-meads" > > > > > > >> I think most of your concerns would be addressed by a quick check of the > > >> opposing CC before the round. Note to Alan, it would be worth emphasising > > >> this. > > >> > > >> On the whole Alan's policy looks pretty reasonable (and not unlike the > > >> EBU's). > > >> > > >I like to look at the opposing CC almost every time an opponent bids > > >something whose meaning or strength is revealed there, regardless of my > > >hand. I thought that was permitted by L40E2. Alan would not let me do that > > >at the Barrington. Evidently you agree with him on that. I think the policy > > >is illegal. > > > > I think the actual wording of L40E1 suggests it may be legal. > > > It is generally accepted that a specific law overrules a general rule. > That means that L40E1 ('The SO may regulate the use of a CC') is outranked by L40E2 which gives opponents the specific right to look at the CC. > Correct. Also should apply to psychs, so not "generally accepted." Whatever, an ACBL club may not ignore an ACBL regulation unless explicitly allowed to do so (as with Stop/Skip rules). >From *Duplicate Decisions, A Club Director's Guide*: "The ACBL has established for all sanctioned events: a. a convention card... b. regulations for the use of the card..." And those regulations say two cards per pair on the table, legible and complete. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 10 07:32:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f69LWJh17670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:32:19 +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 f69LWDt17666 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 07:32:14 +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 f69LV3a26926; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a801c108be$3f731680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200107091839.OAA24322@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:24:39 -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: "Michael Farebrother" > > Apologies to Alan LeBendig and the owners and players at the Bennington > for munging their club name in previous posts. > It's the "Barrington" Bridge Club. No doubt I got it wrong somewhere, sorry, my fault. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 10 10:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A0L4I03349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:21:04 +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 f6A0Knt03336 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:20:55 +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 15JlEX-0008yJ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 01:18:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:42:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules References: <004201c1044f$40a3f920$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <011301c10849$b933d060$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <011301c10849$b933d060$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >From: David Stevenson >> I think the actual wording of L40E1 suggests it may be legal. >> >It is generally accepted that a specific law overrules a general rule. It is? Generally accepted where? By whom? >That means that L40E1 ('The SO may regulate the use of a CC') is outranked by >L40E2 which gives opponents the specific right to look at the CC. One rule gives a specific right to an SO and one a specific right to a player. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 10:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A0Kuv03341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:20:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6A0Knt03337 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:20:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15JlEX-0008yK-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 01:18:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:44:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Careless vs Equitable References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010705091243.00aaa120@127.0.0.1> <008f01c10847$f760c8e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <008f01c10847$f760c8e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >I already wrote earlier that IMO NS should get their trick, if only for the fact >that South deserves to get it. I showed the case to a friend and he immediately >suggested a split score: 'At least until North gets quiet.' ;o) Unfortunately split and weighted scores are illegal in determining claims rulings. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 10:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A0L3903348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:21:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6A0Kmt03335 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:20:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15JlEX-0008yL-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 01:18:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:46:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals References: <$bkO3iEIIkR7Ewbc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000801c107d0$26af4fe0$65291dc2@rabbit> 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 Adam Wildavsky writes >At 7:04 PM +0200 7/8/01, Thomas Dehn wrote: >>I also like the format, for example the fact that the >>booklet always names the laws and regulations >>which were applied by the TD. > >Here, here! This should be a prerequisite for all writeups. It is not >yet universal - I'm always pleased to see it applied. > >In some cases I've been told by an editor that the director did not >tell the committee which laws were applied, or the committee did not >discuss particular laws during their deliberation, so the scribe had >none to report. I view the job of the scribe as in part to require >this information from the committee. This means a scribe, even if not >a committee member, need not keep silent. There are at least two >benefits to this behavior. One is that writeups become more >educational. Another is that, simply by asking a question, a scribe >may avert a decision that has no basis in law. Note that even a >correct final decision serves no didactic purpose if it is not made >according to the laws. The WBF Appeals Form has a section for Law No, and I have changed the EBU and WBU Appeals Forms to have such a section. This makes it much easier for the TD to remember to clarify the point. -- 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 Jul 10 10:37:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A0bJW03380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:37:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6A0bEt03376 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:37:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6A0Xe823847 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:33:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107091839.OAA24322@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200107091542.LAA22883@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200107091839.OAA24322@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 20:29:27 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Farebrother writes: >if you ask, yes, that generates the auto PPf. Okay, I give up. I understand PP (Procedural Penalty) and even PPw (Procedural Penalty: warning), but what's PPf? Procedural Penalty: flogging? :-) 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/AwUBO0pNsr2UW3au93vOEQK2bQCg4S0A6JSaaIShpmM8r9o6uynvTwAAoI02 cqXuiMkypYd86myhCABGy9T2 =d6cU -----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 Jul 10 12:47:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A2kbR04668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:46:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6A2kWt04664 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:46:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6A2h0f09586; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:43:00 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:36:34 -0400 To: blml@farebrother.cx, Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Done, I think - the top right corner, if properly filled out, does this. >"General System", Forcing Bids, NT range. Might be nice to have a >section for "calls likely needing defence" like nearly everyone else; >but given the standard ACBL pairs' use of the one-line for "general >system", I can't expect much from their opinion of what "likely needs >defence". I suppose. I just like the EBU concept of "write it on the front, with a reference if necessary to a fuller explanation elsewhere on the card". Not very workable with the ACBL card, IMO. Not enough room. >However, frequently we play against: > >"" >or >"2/1" >or >"SA" Yeah. There's a few around here who maintain "we play standard, so we don't need a card." :-( >(Once, I put with a new partner (a decent junior, who would appreciate >the lowbrow sense of humour) a general system of "N.F.C. 2/1" I was >hoping someone would ask. Finally (about the 6th round of a Swiss) >partner asked "What's N.F.C.?" I replied "I have no idea." The whole >table got it - eventually - and a very funny, pleasant game ensued.) Heh. Good one. :-) >Yep. The PTB keep saying "a card suitable for Forcing Club [ok, they >say Precision - mdf] will be avaiable soon", after this point is brought >up every time the card gets changed. Still haven't seen it. I'll believe it when I see it (he said sourly. :-) >Unfortunate, really - there's a great deal of difference between a >forcing Club system and a "could be short" (even as short as 1) system; >and it should be available on the card, so that the poor opps need not >remind their opponents about their system. Maybe I should make one - >frankly,when I needed one, I just wiped out the whole box, and replaced >it with a 1D box (small) and a 1C box (large). Hm. Perhaps a box/section for "forcing opening(s)" would work, if designed properly. > >4. The score card should *not* be included on the > >back of the CC. Period. Exclamation point. > >Ok, this is my bugbear. [snip] We agree. :-) >But it's tradition - ACBLers are herdminded to believe that a CC's >primary use is to hide their scorecard. Sorry, I'm a wolf, not a sheep. :-) >There's a few, and they are all M$-based. Or you can edit the .BMP >(hmm, more MSing, but at least other things can read it) IIRC, the file the acbl supplies "for Mac users" is a jpeg. No matter; it's doable. Barely. >One point: Either *nix or Lin*x, please. Mr. Torvalds isn't Lunis, >after all. Yeah, I knew that. I got in a hurry and didn't proofread. Sorry about that. :-) >Hmm (wonders if Lee Edwards' CCE works under WINE...) Now *there's* a thought. :-) [snip about CC holders] I had been using the "folding" type of card holder. As it recently began to fall apart, I bought one of the "Kentucky" type flat holders. That seems to be working much better. But I still get "why are you putting this thing in my way?" from some opps. :-( >Now, if we could teach people that their personal scorecard is less >important than the official one... I've been trying (with varying degrees of success) to train my regular partners to make their @*&&* opening lead (or put the dummy down) before they touch their scorecard. But it's slow going. 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/AwUBO0psAb2UW3au93vOEQIi7wCg0lP7sX+HDvpKlrRnJneos9i9AugAnjpN WOfCBCHjQxRwzfOhFhupMbhG =4gf9 -----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 Jul 10 14:21:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A4JwZ06400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:19:58 +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 f6A4Jpt06368 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:19:51 +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 f6A4Ifa24822 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010401c108f7$32f44c60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:14:25 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Those who get the ACBL *Bridge Bulletin* may be interested in Danny Kleinman's letter about CCs, page 56-57, and Gary Blaiss's comments. While I think Danny goes a little overboard on CC disclosure, exceeding ACBL requirements with extra detail, I agree 100% with almost all that he wrote. Gary evidently felt Danny's complaint that players were concealing their convention cards implied intentional wrongdoing on their part (I didn't see that implication), saying "it is risky to judge an opponent's intent," and (!) "sometimes there is not room on the table for everyone's convention cards." He offered no remedy for Danny's concerns, other than the implied one: continue letting players ignore ACBL CC regulations (which come from the ACBL Board of Directors, who don't seem concerned either). My current solution to the CC-on-the-table problem is this: Fold the cc in half, as designed, and get it laminated, both sides, sealing it up. Two for a $1+. The result is an attractive, slim, and durable CC. Use a regular convention card's scoring side for private scoring, also folded. When arriving at a table, put the score card under the bidding box (Steve Willner's suggestion) and the CC beside it, oriented for easy reading by RHO. When scoring, pick up the CC and use it as a stiff backing for writing on the private score, then replace both unless it is the last board of a round (when both are conveniently in hand for the change of table). There is now plenty of room on the table for four CCs, four bidding boxes, boards, score slips, and pens/pencils. At NABCs the bidding boxes are suspended off each corner on a bracket, so unfolded CCs should not be a problem. And indeed, the CC regulations are enforced at NABCs, at least for NABC+ events (by TDs called because of an infraction, not otherwise). I still think the reverse side of the CC should not be used for scoring, as it leads to security leaks. Where the separate scorecard should be kept, I don't know. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 10 14:22:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6A4MWf07286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:22:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6A4MQt07252 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010710042013.ENCL25177.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:20:13 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Brighton Appeals Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 21:28:07 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > The WBF Appeals Form has a section for Law No, and I have changed the >EBU and WBU Appeals Forms to have such a section. This makes it much >easier for the TD to remember to clarify the point. > So does the ACBL form. Still aren't getting the info all the time. Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 10 20:49:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6AAmjD12016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:48:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6AAmct12012 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 20:48:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15Jv20-000NNE-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:46:18 +0100 Message-ID: <7uLQLIGZzkS7Ewhc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 01:31:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules References: <200107090156.VAA11680@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010709150614.00824810@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010709150614.00824810@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 >> >>Having said all that - when the policy leaves the club, and I start >>seeing it at my tournaments, I'll gripe - not because it's illegal, but >>it's the wrong solution to the problem. As Chris said, the real >>solution is to Announce all NT ranges. Then, maybe, we can get back to >>looking at the CC being for information one doesn't already have (and if >>it's being used as a flag, then we nail 'em). > >AG : it's very difficult for any pair to know what, in their system, will >be if interest for their opponents. It would thus be difficult to know what >to pre-alert. For example, I know of some pairs who have the same defense >against weak and strong NT, but different defenses to Acol and 5c-major 1C >openings. Neither of those two is alertable, of course, but one has to >know. The opponents will never think of it. And there are specific >treatments against which I have specific defenses : different defenses vs >standard Drury and Drury-fit, vs fit-showing jumps and Bergen raises, vs >Michaels and Ghestem cue-bids, vs Landy and Astro, etc. Am I expected to >check all this in advance ? Of course not. I then have to either ask or >check the CC after the alert. It seems unavoidable, but transmits little >information, if you systematically look / ask. I think pre-alerting is simple enough. Anyone who wants to know odd things like defences to opening 1NTs can look them up for themselves. Pre-alerting should be for strange carding, basic system, and 2-level openings. There are a few other things, but they are really quite obvious. -- 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 Jul 10 21:31:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ABVJN12050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:31:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6ABVBt12045 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:31:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6ABSvp27488 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:28:57 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:28 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules 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: <006801c108b8$9f114b80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > Of course the practical rule is that an SO can do whatever it wants. > > Except violate ACBL regulations when not given the option to do so. No, they can do that as well. The ACBL can threaten to sanction a club withdrawing masterpoints and its blessing. However if the club says "go ahead punk, make may day" the ACBL (unless it is really serious) will not wish to see the loss of revenue and will thus end up condoning the disapproved of behaviour. Hence the "practical" rule above. 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 Jul 11 02:35:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6AGZDF14406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:35:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6AGZ5t14359 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 02:35:05 +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 f6AGXsa24771 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001201c1095d$e6dc72a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 09:25:03 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-Meads" > Marv wrote: > > > > Of course the practical rule is that an SO can do whatever it wants. > > > > Except violate ACBL regulations when not given the option to do so. > > No, they can do that as well. The ACBL can threaten to sanction a club > withdrawing masterpoints and its blessing. However if the club says "go > ahead punk, make may day" the ACBL (unless it is really serious) will not > wish to see the loss of revenue and will thus end up condoning the > disapproved of behaviour. Hence the "practical" rule above. > You could be right, I suppose, but I haven't seen any instance of a club's deciding to ignore an ACBL-mandated regulation. Much as they didn't like Alerts at the beginning, and still don't in many cases, no club that I know of has decided to drop or modify the ACBL Alert Procedure. The usual non-compliance comes from ignorance, not from design. A club here at one time barred psyching in afternoon games. When I brought that to Memphis's attention, the club owner grudgingly changed the policy to one of merely asking that players not psych. Of course that was a matter of Law, not regulation. The ACBL is very firm in its insistence that clubs must adhere to the Laws, all the Laws. It's interesting that Tim, way out there in the Wood, knows so much about the ACBL. I really doubt that a club would risk losing its right to award masterpoints, which would instantly cause most patrons to go elsewhere. On the other hand, there are more tables of non-franchised duplicate games in San Diego than ACBL games. The players seem to be having a wonderful time, with no CCs, no Alerts, few director calls (never for UI/MI), and no masterpoints. The entry fees are very low, barely enough to break even, so there would be little incentive for an ACBL-franchised club owner to drop out of the ACBL. Change to a rubber bridge club? Not in these parts. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 11 05:26:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6AJP8t29687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 05:25:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f36.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6AJP0t29678 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 05:25:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:22:41 -0700 Received: from 63.208.222.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:22:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.208.222.11] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Club Rules Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:22:41 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2001 19:22:41.0485 (UTC) FILETIME=[B03017D0:01C10975] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner >From: Michael Farebrother > > L40E1 (I know, not 2) says specifically "SOs may establish rules for > > their use", and if one of those rules is "look at the card in this > > situation and you will be deemed to have passed UI (of whatever sort is > > common)" then use youir L40E2 rights all you want, but remember that you > > *do* pass UI (though less, *usually*, than asking does), and do put > > partner under obligations. > >That would probably be OK, but as I understand Alan's rule, he imposes >an automatic PPf whenever someone looks at the CC or asks a question. > >The legality of this regulation is still not clear, though. The WBFLC >says the "not in conflict with these Laws" applies _only_ to >regulations made under authority of L80F. If that's the case, a >regulation under L40E1 would still be legal even if it conflicts with >L40E2. I'm not certain there is a conflict. L42E2 doesn't say "freely" and the regulation (as I remember reading it) is adding a cost to excercising one's right, rather than being a prohibitation with penalties for infringing. Or, at least, it could be reworded to this effect. >Of course the practical rule is that an SO can do whatever it wants. True, but I think the boat was missed. If the computer bridge tourney is still happening in Toronto, the same Alan is responsible for the specialized conditions there, which as of the last time I saw them were sorely lacking in taking advantage of the setting, i.e. no need for alerts as UI is never a problem. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 11 19:45:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6B9i5C19104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:44:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6B9hvt19067 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:43:58 +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 15KGUt-0004SK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:41:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:04:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Law 25A MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. Three scenarios follow. [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change? [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change? -- 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 Jul 11 20:46:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BAkKg28788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:46:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BAkCt28781 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:46:14 +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, 11 Jul 2001 12:45:22 +0200 Message-ID: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:45:20 +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 f6BAkFt28783 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:04 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 25A Three questions, different answers, depending on who you ask. I'll give my own opinion as well as the opinion of the Swedish Bridge Federation's LC, which has written a Law 112 regarding the use of bidding boxes. > > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > > [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately > attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. My opinion: No problem. SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. They also interpret that if there was a considerable pause, that the pause could have been used for thought, thus making it 'pause for thought' as in Law 25. (I hope that I summarized their reasoning correctly. If not, I apologize.) > [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you > look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do > we allow a change? > My opinion: The difficult one of the three. The Laws say, that you may not base a play or a call on UI. They do not say that you cannot call a director or restore a mechanical error based on UI. The UI argument therefore does not apply to this situation and you are allowed to correct your mechanical error. SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. > [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > change it. Do we allow a change? > My opinion: Obviously, even if we would allow the UI argument as I mentioned under 2 (which I think we shouldn't), you should be allowed to change your bid. Information from the opponents is AI. SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. Greetings from Sweden, 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 Jul 11 21:59:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BBwjI00077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:58:45 +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 f6BBwbt00072 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:58:38 +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 NAA09582; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:55:56 +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 NAA26027; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:56:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:01:08 +0200 To: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen), "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:45 11/07/01 +0200, Rik Terveen wrote: > >Three questions, different answers, depending on who you ask. I'll give my own opinion as well as the opinion of the Swedish Bridge Federation's LC, which has written a Law 112 regarding the use of bidding boxes. >> You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. >> >> Three scenarios follow. AG : in all three scenarios, I would allow the player to take back his cards. The reasons are : - there seems to have been no pause for thought - there would be no inequity in allowing it, only a correction of an inadvertency, like allowing declarer to correct an unestablished revoke (note that in that case the information may come from partner) or allowing any player to correct a slip of the tongue in bidding or in naming the cards (the Bridge Wolrd feature 'Appeals Committee' signals that the time elapsed could be quite long) - it simplifies the ensuing procedure (no need to look for MI vs misbid, no suspicion of psyche, no feeling of inequity from opponents ...) A recent AC in which I sat went one step farther (too far ?) : we applied a small PP to a player who admitted he realized quite quickly his misbisd, and did not correct it. Although there is no obligation to correct, we knew he knew he could, and we felt he could well have declined it on purpose, to create the ensuing imbroglio (knowing the guy). Ask Herman for details. Since the SBF was the first to realize the interest of BBS, I suppose they are on firm ground when regulating their use. But their way to do it is looking for trouble. 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 Jul 11 22:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BC4Jh00912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:04:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BC4Ct00871 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:04:12 +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 OAA10107; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:01:31 +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 OAA28570; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:01:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010711140643.0082c580@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:06:43 +0200 To: Ed Reppert , blml@farebrother.cx, Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] In-Reply-To: References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:36 9/07/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > >>(Once, I put with a new partner (a decent junior, who would appreciate >>the lowbrow sense of humour) a general system of "N.F.C. 2/1" I was >>hoping someone would ask. Finally (about the 6th round of a Swiss) >>partner asked "What's N.F.C.?" I replied "I have no idea." The whole >>table got it - eventually - and a very funny, pleasant game ensued.) > >Heh. Good one. :-) AG : not grasped it. Not For Children ? No F*** Conventions ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 11 22:08:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BC7rJ02175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:07:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BC7kt02138 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:07:47 +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 OAA10473; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:05:06 +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 OAA00200; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:05:20 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010711141017.00826100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:10:17 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] In-Reply-To: <010401c108f7$32f44c60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:14 9/07/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >My current solution to the CC-on-the-table problem is this: > >Fold the cc in half, as designed, and get it laminated, both sides, sealing >it up. Two for a $1+. The result is an attractive, slim, and durable CC. Use >a regular convention card's scoring side for private scoring, also folded. >When arriving at a table, put the score card under the bidding box (Steve >Willner's suggestion) and the CC beside it, oriented for easy reading by >RHO. When scoring, pick up the CC and use it as a stiff backing for writing >on the private score, then replace both unless it is the last board of a >round (when both are conveniently in hand for the change of table). AG : yeah, neat solution. If you don't change systems every week, that is. Of course, the unassailable solution would be for the ACBL to produce two separate documents. The French Federation recently realized it was a good idea. Surely the ACBL can't be more stubborn than the FFB :-S 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 Jul 11 22:25:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BCOf007421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:24:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BCOYt07415 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:24:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA32073; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 11 14:21:00 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5T3ASLMSK008UP1@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:21:42 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:20:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:21:41 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson asks: You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > > [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, > immediately > attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. indeed, you are allowed to change it. > > [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of > his alert you > look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > change it. Do > we allow a change? yes, we do > > [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > change it. Do we allow a change? yes, we do. we assume that he didn't need time to decide what call to make, without pause for thought so. I don't like this 'pause for thought' at all. We don't need it when dealing with an inadvertent call. Because at the moment we can't change a bidding card when a player has produced it mechanically without having made up his mind what call to make. But we can if he knows what to do, but took the wrong card. There is no need to make that distinction in my opinion. ton > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 11 22:27:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BCRoA07494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:27:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BCRht07488 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:27:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA08590; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:25:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 11 14:24:09 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5T3EZNIGE008SBS@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:25:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:23:28 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:24:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A To: "'Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A5@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 > SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. > > Greetings from Sweden, > > Rik ter Veen Forgotten to translate 25A in the Swedish edition? You better use the English version. I am not sure we should accept these Swedish greetings. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 11 22:34:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BCY6S07616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:34:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BCY0t07612 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:34:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.18.60]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010711123144.ECZH295.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:31:44 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c10a06$57c9a980$3c12ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 13:38:08 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 1:04 AM Subject: [BLML] Law 25A > > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > > [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately > attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > > [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you > look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do > we allow a change? > There has been a pause, but it was not a pause for thought. I attemp to change the call as soon as I become aware of it. There is no UI - the "pull" was a mechanical error. We allow the change under Law 25a. > > [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > change it. Do we allow a change? There has been a pause, but it was not a pause for thought. I attemp to change the call as soon as I become aware of it. There is no UI - the "pull" was a mechanical error. We allow the change under Law 25a. 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 Jul 11 23:22:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BDLmx09722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:21:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BDLdt09711 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:21:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6BDHjW18823; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010711140643.0082c580@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010711140643.0082c580@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:14:30 -0400 To: alain gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Cc: Ed Reppert , blml@farebrother.cx, Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:06 PM +0200 7/11/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : not grasped it. Not For Children ? No F*** Conventions ? Don't ask me; that was Mike Farebrother whose words you attributed to me. The latter seems to work. Or "no f'ing clue". 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/AwUBO0xSU72UW3au93vOEQJYCQCgjZ+SkW8yKw99p+EfJ4Cyz9+5l7QAoNDM a25lNL6HJS3TsnJJK4ZP7Jog =C8By -----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 Jul 11 23:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BDQAa09960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:26:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BDQ4t09953 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:26:05 +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; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:25:14 +0200 Message-ID: <006c01c10a0c$eae13e80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Kooijman, A." , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:25:13 +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 f6BDQ7t09957 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: ; BLML Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 2:24 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A > > > SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. > > > > Greetings from Sweden, > > > > Rik ter Veen > > > > > > Forgotten to translate 25A in the Swedish edition? You better use the > English version. > I am not sure we should accept these Swedish greetings. > > ton > -- Three clarifications: 1) I do not share the opinion of the SBF's LC. Of course, I am happy to see that BLML sides with me. 2) The differences between Ton and myself on the one side and the SBF's LC are caused by a difference in interpretation of the phrase 'pause for thought'. Ton admits that the usage of this phrase is unfortunate and complicating the matter. Even if I don't agree with the reasoning of the SBF's LC, it is not entirely unreasonable to say that if a certain amount of time has elapsed that some of it could have been used for thought. 3) The greetings came from me, not from the Swedish LC with which I am not affiliated. The greetings were sincere. I hope you accept them. 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 Jul 11 23:50:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BDoLJ11092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:50:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BDoDt11080 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:50:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA04845; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:47:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 11 15:46:41 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5T6ALVAHM008U22@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:47:03 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:45:27 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:47:02 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A To: "'Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se'" , "Kooijman, A." , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A8@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 > > > SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. > > Forgotten to translate 25A in the Swedish edition? You > better use the > > English version. > > I am not sure we should accept these Swedish greetings. > > > > ton > > -- > > Three clarifications: > > 1) I do not share the opinion of the SBF's LC. Of course, I > am happy to see that BLML sides with me. > 2) The differences between Ton and myself on the one side and > the SBF's LC are caused by a difference in interpretation of > the phrase 'pause for thought'. Ton admits that the usage of > this phrase is unfortunate and complicating the matter. Even > if I don't agree with the reasoning of the SBF's LC, it is > not entirely unreasonable to say that if a certain amount of > time has elapsed that some of it could have been used for thought. > 3) The greetings came from me, not from the Swedish LC with > which I am not affiliated. The greetings were sincere. I hope > you accept them. > > Rik ter Veen The bridgeworld might be better off without all these LC's thinking that they have to interpret the laws themselves. You gave as reason for not allowing this change (from the Swedish LC) that 'the bidding cards were released' (see above). Then this LC ignores the existence of 25 A and B, which is just one of the examples I could use to illustrate my strong feelings expressed above. Of course I accept the greetings from you from Sweden. The more so where your name suggests strong relations with my own country. Use your influence there. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 01:04:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BF3Zs14556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:03:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BF3Rt14546 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:03:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.241]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6BF1An19329 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:01:10 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B4C2BD2.FF7D3ADC@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:34:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Good questions. Read L25A. David Stevenson wrote: > > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > > [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately > attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > Indeed L25A does not impose a time limit (in seconds, it does in bidding : until partner has called) - so this is alright. > [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you > look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do > we allow a change? > YES. L25A does not say anything about this matter. The bid was just as inadvertent. > [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > change it. Do we allow a change? > YES, same argument. David should have inversed cases 2 and 3, as I suspect some people would try looking at L16, and say that in case 3, the U(?)I comes from opponent, in case 2 it comes from partner, so they would allow 3 but not 2. But this is not important, since L16 speaks only of bidding and play, based on UI. It says nothing about "noticing ones own bidding card". Since that is not forbidden, it is allowed, and so L25A still applies. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 01:46:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BFkPK16520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:46:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BFkHt16510 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:46:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id EB24AD7CAD for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:43:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:43:59 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <99roktgeletrk478r8a2cfc3buaftfh2s7@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6BFkKt16512 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 01:04:13 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. >[2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you >look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do >we allow a change? We discussed that problem some time ago in a thread (with 226 messages) that began with a message by me: Subject: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:08:17 +0100 Message-ID: I still say yes to David's question [2] (and [3], of course), for two reasons: (a) The beginning of L16 tells us explicitly that "legal calls" are AI. IMO this means that the fact that a player (legally) bid something, cannot be UI to him or to anybody else, no matter how he learnt what he had bid. (b) I believe that the most sensible interpretation (which I'd suggest writing into the laws at some time) in general in these cases is that any information that a player has a right to acquire just by asking or looking at the table (e.g., the auction itself, the vulnerability, or the opponents' system) is always AI, even if he gets it from partner. Sometimes partner's giving this information is an infraction in itself that may be penalized using L90 or L72B1, but the information is still AI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 02:02:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BG2E317253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:02:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BG28t17248 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:02:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id D6445D7CAD for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:59:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:59:52 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <99roktgeletrk478r8a2cfc3buaftfh2s7@nuser.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <99roktgeletrk478r8a2cfc3buaftfh2s7@nuser.dybdal.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6BG2At17249 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >I still say yes to David's question [2] (and [3], of course), for two reasons: But I forgot to mention the correlation of L25A to L16 here. If the call is AI, then of course L25A applies. If the call is UI (which I don't believe it is), then L25A might still apply, but when given the chance to correct the call, the player would have to make his choice without being influenced by the "UI" that he had actually bid something other than what he thought. This could be interpreted to mean that he would have to not change his call; on the other hand, the fact that the TD has offered him a chance to change his call is AI and tells him that he has misbid. In short, it seems to me that if the call is UI, then the L25A situation is a mess that is impossible to handle sensibly: that is yet another argument for the call being considered AI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 02:11:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BGB7c17672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:11:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BGAvt17653 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:10:57 +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 15KMXW-000DMI-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:08:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:14:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >Since the SBF was the first to realize the interest of BBS, I suppose they >are on firm ground when regulating their use. But their way to do it is >looking for trouble. I would have thought their answer in the first case was based on a regulation in conflict with the Laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 02:11:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BGB4w17667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:11:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BGAtt17649 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:10:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15KMXW-000DMJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:08:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:17:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <006c01c10a0c$eae13e80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <006c01c10a0c$eae13e80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >Three clarifications: > >2) The differences between Ton and myself on the one side and the SBF's LC are >caused by a difference in interpretation of the phrase 'pause for thought'. Ton >admits that the usage of this phrase is unfortunate and complicating the matter. >Even if I don't agree with the reasoning of the SBF's LC, it is not entirely >unreasonable to say that if a certain amount of time has elapsed that some of it >could have been used for thought. Certainly, but that is not how we generally interpret it. The normal interpretation is that the pause for thought is from the realisation of the error. The Swedish LC are clearly not using that interpretation. The examples I gave deliberately had no pause for thought from the realisation of the error. -- 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 Jul 12 02:32:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BGWc622139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:32:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BGWVt22129 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:32:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 24E41D7CAD for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:30:16 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:30:16 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <98voktocnpfu7h92oapccaa2rlrehm2u7e@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6BGWXt22132 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:01:08 +0200, alain gottcheiner wrote: >A recent AC in which I sat went one step farther (too far ?) : we applied a >small PP to a player who admitted he realized quite quickly his misbisd, >and did not correct it. He has made a legal bid and has no desire to change it - so why should he be forced to do so? >Although there is no obligation to correct, we knew >he knew he could, and we felt he could well have declined it on purpose, Yes - this is basically the same as deciding to psyche, he just made his choice after misbidding. >to >create the ensuing imbroglio (knowing the guy). I don't understand why there should be an imbroglio. Even guys you know are allowed to psyche. I very often act in a way just like your description above: when I misbid, I usually realize immediately that I have misbid. But by the time I have analyzed the situation so far as to realize that this is a L25A situation, I have usually spent so much time "pausing for thought" that it is no longer a L25A situation. I therefore cannot change my call after all, and of course I say nothing about it at all until afterwards. So yes, I too want the "no pause for thought" clause removed. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 02:59:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BGxDa23197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:59:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BGx7t23190 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:59:07 +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 MAA25520 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08292 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:56:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:56:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107111656.MAA08292@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Forgotten to translate 25A in the Swedish edition? You better use the > English version. This was my first reaction too, but I wonder whether the Swedish reasoning is something like the following: if there was a pause, we cannot tell whether it was "for thought" or not. Therefore we routinely rule against the player who created the problem, i.e., that the pause was for thought, and thus no change is allowed under L25A. As David S. says, this is contrary to the interpretation in most of the world, but I don't see why it is illegal. > From: Herman De Wael > > [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you > > look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do > > we allow a change? > > YES. L25A does not say anything about this matter. The bid > was just as inadvertent. (Many others said essentially the same thing, but Herman's happens to be easiest to quote.) Are you sure about that last? Isn't the question of whether the original bid was inadvertent or not a matter on which has to make a ruling after gathering evidence? It seems to me entirely possible, within David's brief statement, that the player fully intended his original bid but partner's alert reminded him of a partnership agreement, and only then did he want to change. Don't we have to find out? The same principle, whatever it is, must apply to Case 3 as well. IMHO, the "inadvertent" part of L25A is _much_ harder than the "without pause for thought" part. > From: Jesper Dybdal > Sometimes partner's giving this > information is an infraction in itself that may be penalized using L90 or > L72B1, but the information is still AI. More commonly, I would expect the infraction would be of L73B1. This does not require any "could have known," just a judgment that the question or remark or whatever was improper. If there's damage, the score adjustment would come under L12A1. Of course you could issue a PP whether there's damage 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 Thu Jul 12 03:28:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BHRfY24167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 03:27:41 +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.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 f6BHRat24162 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 03:27:37 +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 ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:20:53 -0700 Message-ID: <001501c10a2e$63e4d8c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010711141017.00826100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:24:44 -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: "alain gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >My current solution to the CC-on-the-table problem is this: > > > >Fold the cc in half, as designed, and get it laminated, both sides, sealing > >it up. Two for a $1+. The result is an attractive, slim, and durable CC. Use > >a regular convention card's scoring side for private scoring, also folded. > >When arriving at a table, put the score card under the bidding box (Steve > >Willner's suggestion) and the CC beside it, oriented for easy reading by > >RHO. When scoring, pick up the CC and use it as a stiff backing for writing > >on the private score, then replace both unless it is the last board of a > >round (when both are conveniently in hand for the change of table). Tried this last night, and found the procedure too cumbersome. The score card, folded, will henceforth be under my folded/laminated CC, where it fits nicely. > > AG : yeah, neat solution. If you don't change systems every week, that is. In that case you don't have a CC durabiliity problem, which both the common holder and laminating obviate. Just fold the CC and use it unlaminated. Players who produce their CCs with a color printer should print them on very stiff paper so that they lie flat and last longer if not laminated. Printing a private score sheet on such paper would, especially when backed by a stiffer CC, facilitate entering scores without using the (public) table surface. I had four CCs laminated yesterday, $1.29 plus tax = $1.39, at Office Depot. However, I think that was a mistake and it should have been twice as much. Many ACBL units and even clubs have inexpensive laminators for laminating bidding box cards. Using them for CCs would be a bonus for members. A laminator could be on hand at sectionals, regionals, and NABCs. > Of course, the unassailable solution would be for the ACBL to produce two > separate documents. The French Federation recently realized it was a good > idea. Surely the ACBL can't be more stubborn than the FFB :-S Right. Start printing convention cards on one side of the paper only. Add an instruction "FOLD HERE." Print private score sheets separately, using less expensive paper. Ban the use of unfolded plastic holders, and require that the maximum contents be one CC and one private score sheet. The reverse side of the CC could perhaps be used exclusively for lead and carding agreements, leads on one side, carding agreements on the other side. Then all the pre-printed fonts and check boxes could be larger. The current ACBL CC fonts are much too small. Also: Do not permit players to use the table as a writing surface for private scores when an opponent is at the table. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Thu Jul 12 04:53:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BIrQO24863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:53:26 +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 f6BIrFt24859 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:53:16 +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 OAA06129 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:59:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107111859.OAA06129@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010711140643.0082c580@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010711140643.0082c580@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:59:18 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 11 July 2001 at 14:06, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 22:36 9/07/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >>>(Once, I put with a new partner (a decent junior, who would appreciate >>>the lowbrow sense of humour) a general system of "N.F.C. 2/1" I was >>>hoping someone would ask. Finally (about the 6th round of a Swiss) >>>partner asked "What's N.F.C.?" I replied "I have no idea." The whole >>>table got it - eventually - and a very funny, pleasant game ensued.) >> >>Heh. Good one. :-) > >AG : not grasped it. Not For Children ? No F*** Conventions ? > Almost. "No F*** Clue". As in "I truly have no idea. That's what it means". 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 Jul 12 05:02:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BJ22024879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:02:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.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 f6BJ1ut24875 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6BIs5103789; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:54:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001501c10a2e$63e4d8c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010711141017.00826100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001501c10a2e$63e4d8c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:52:55 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:24 AM -0700 7/11/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >I had four CCs laminated yesterday, $1.29 plus tax = $1.39, at Office Depot. >However, I think that was a mistake and it should have been twice as much. >Many ACBL units and even clubs have inexpensive laminators for laminating >bidding box cards. Using them for CCs would be a bonus for members. A >laminator could be on hand at sectionals, regionals, and NABCs. Good idea. > > Of course, the unassailable solution would be for the ACBL to produce two > > separate documents. The French Federation recently realized it was a good > > idea. Surely the ACBL can't be more stubborn than the FFB :-S > >Right. Start printing convention cards on one side of the paper only. Add an >instruction "FOLD HERE." Print private score sheets separately, using less >expensive paper. Ban the use of unfolded plastic holders, and require that >the maximum contents be one CC and one private score sheet. Not so good. Yes, print private score sheets separately. No, don't ban plastic holders, unfolded or otherwise, and don't make the stated requirement. >The reverse side of the CC could perhaps be used exclusively for lead and >carding agreements, leads on one side, carding agreements on the other side. >Then all the pre-printed fonts and check boxes could be larger. The current >ACBL CC fonts are much too small. Agree on the type size question, disagree on the use of the back side. I don't think that much room is required for leads and signals. And I *do* think more room than is on one side is needed for bidding system description. >Also: Do not permit players to use the table as a writing surface for >private scores when an opponent is at the table. I tend to sit North, so this works well for me - I'm trying to train myself not to fill out the private score until after the round, and then just copy the data from the pick-up slip. A trick I learned from a new partner last week. Works well for those sitting NS, but what about the EW pairs? And given the (in)ability of many players (including me!) to remember details about past boards, what does that do to EW's obligation to agree the scores on the pickup slip are correct? It seems to me doing this is in effect banning private scores altogether. That may or may not be a good idea, but I guarantee you it would get a lot of resistance. On reflection, I suppose perhaps you mean "require players to complete their private scores with the card out of sight - below table level, for example." I suppose that would be workable, once you train players to do it that way. But ACBL players seem to be notoriously *un*trainable in things like this. :-) 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/AwUBO0yhIr2UW3au93vOEQIIIACgi+pe3neRkSKPdAKZf9nJQtlBP8IAoILs 3BD8TO3LqmiW32V3r1NwN5Ph =M3ll -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 05:35:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BJZ9w24911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BJZ2t24907 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:35:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-166.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.166]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f6BJWi202362 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000001c10a40$ce0e1a60$a63d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200107090116.VAA11183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010711140643.0082c580@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:58:54 +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 "alain gottcheiner" sked: > At 22:36 9/07/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > >>(Once, I put with a new partner (a decent > >>junior, who would appreciate > >>the lowbrow sense of humour) a general system of "N.F.C. 2/1" I was > >>hoping someone would ask. Finally (about the 6th round of a Swiss) > >>partner asked "What's N.F.C.?" I replied "I have no idea." The whole > >>table got it - eventually - and a very funny, pleasant game ensued.) > > > >Heh. Good one. :-) > > AG : not grasped it. Not For Children ? No F*** Conventions ? Non Forcing Club :-) 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 Jul 12 05:43:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BJh4P24928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:43:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BJgwt24924 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:42:59 +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 PAA02397 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA08706 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:40:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107111940.PAA08706@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Michael Farebrother > Almost. "No F*** Clue". As in "I truly have no idea. That's what it > means". The G-rated version might be "Not (the) Faintest Clue." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 06:07:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BK6gS26613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:06:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BK6Zt26579 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:06:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F5ECD7CAD for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:04:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 22:04:19 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200107111656.MAA08292@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107111656.MAA08292@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6BK6bt26586 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:56:51 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >Are you sure about that last? Isn't the question of whether the >original bid was inadvertent or not a matter on which has to make a >ruling after gathering evidence? It seems to me entirely possible, >within David's brief statement, that the player fully intended his >original bid but partner's alert reminded him of a partnership >agreement, and only then did he want to change. Don't we have to >find out? David's post began with: "You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise." As I read that, the bid was inadvertent. >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Sometimes partner's giving this >> information is an infraction in itself that may be penalized using L90 or >> L72B1, but the information is still AI. > >More commonly, I would expect the infraction would be of L73B1. This >does not require any "could have known," just a judgment that the >question or remark or whatever was improper. If there's damage, the >score adjustment would come under L12A1. Of course you could issue a >PP whether there's damage or not. Yes, L73B1/L12A1 can also be relevant. But I actually think that L72B1 can be used in most cases: when you give useful information to partner, you usually "could have known" that it could be to your advantage. Of course, it might happen in the course of ordinary conversation in an informal game of bridge that you make a remark that happens to call partner's attention to an aspect of opponents' system in a situation where you had absolutely no way of suspecting that partner was not aware of that system already. In that situation, you could not have known, and I would not have a problem with letting the score stand. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 09:28:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BNRRP17521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:27:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6BNRLt17486 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (vp216-149.worldonline.nl [195.241.216.149]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 62CF936CDD; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:25:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004001c10a61$21d50a80$95d8f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "David Stevenson" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:27:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > >[1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately >attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > >[2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you >look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do >we allow a change? > >[3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his >question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to >change it. Do we allow a change? > I have taken advantage of the replies given so far (that is to say: I've read them, and I hope my reply will make some sense); here are my answers. Questions 1 and 3 : No problem; I believe the change should be allowed under L21A. Question 2 : I have some doubts here. On the one hand, L21A seems simply to cover this, because this Law deals with a call already made before UI was transferred (supposing, that is we consider the alert to be UI), and L16 seems not to apply for the same reason. On the other hand, it might just be that we encounter a case in which a player wants to change his call after partner's alert because the alert has made him realise that his actual call was a misbid. Therefore, I think my ruling in case 2 should be: Yes, I will allow the change under L21A, but I should afterwards ask the player why he placed the wrong bidding card on the table in the first place. If he cannot give me a fairly reasonable explanation that matches his hand, I am in a mess, because I should have applied L25B, but I will apply L16 after all and assign an adjusted score. Mind you, I expect that the odds are heavily against the occurrence of such a case. Final doubt, resulting in a bonus question: if I am correct in taking extra care when treating case 2, then should I restate case 1 as follows "[4] Your partner DOES NOT alert, which surprises you. Because of his NON-alert you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change?" and treat it similarly to case 2 ??? Jac (Jac Fuchs) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 09:56:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6BNuVX27802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:56:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6BNuPt27766 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:56:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-025.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.217]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA98060 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:54:02 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:54:31 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10A6D.35E81600.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 00:54:30 +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: > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > >[1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > >[2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change? > >[3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his >question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change? > (1) and (3) are easy - we allow the change as per 25A. (2) is the most difficult because partner is involved. However the bottom line is that the call was inadvertent so it doesn't matter who draws attention to it - it is still inadvertent - so we allow the change. 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 Jul 12 10:36:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C0Zxe11821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:35:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f6C0Zqt11793 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15KUQA-000GCl-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:33:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:32:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals References: <$bkO3iEIIkR7Ewbc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$bkO3iEIIkR7Ewbc@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 David Stevenson writes > So if you want your copy of the Brighton appeals to be the correct >one, go to > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec If you want to read a version on the web [rather than download it] I have found it has been posted on the Bridge in India site at http://www.bridgeinindia.homestead.com/files/EBU-Appeals.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 Jul 12 11:03:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C13Nn21539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:03:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6C13Gt21499 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15KUqh-0005qm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 02:00:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:59:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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 > > You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > Three scenarios follow. > >[1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately >attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > >[2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you >look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do >we allow a change? > >[3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his >question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to >change it. Do we allow a change? > I do in all three cases. It is "... inadvertent ..." and therefore "... without pause for thought ..."? is the question that needs to be resolved. cheers john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 17:19:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C7Hnx18190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:17:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6C7Hft18150 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:17:43 +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; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:16:50 +0200 Message-ID: <003301c10aa2$9ece8980$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se><3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:16:48 +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 f6C7Hit18167 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > alain gottcheiner writes > > >Since the SBF was the first to realize the interest of BBS, I suppose they > >are on firm ground when regulating their use. But their way to do it is > >looking for trouble. > > I would have thought their answer in the first case was based on a > regulation in conflict with the Laws. > For what it's worth, I think so too. I also firmly believe that the pause for thought starts at the moment that the mistake was discovered. 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 Jul 12 18:35:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C8YW215875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:34:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6C8YQt15871 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:34:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6C8W8x08797 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:32:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:32 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Let us not be too harsh on the Swedes. Here are the regulations on bidding box usage from the St John's Wood (North) BC. (This club opened for one night only and bidding boxes were not actually in use but if it does happen again they will apply). Procedure for use of bidding boxes: In making a call the player should remove his intended call from the bidding box and inspect the face of the card to ensure it is the one intended. He should place the card face down on the table in front of him and release it after a final check. If, during this process the player becomes aware that the call is not his intended one he must say something and/or immediately attempt to return the cards to the bidding box. For L25a ruling purposes TDs will assume that this procedure has been followed and thus L25a no longer applies after the card has been released. Note 1: where a call has been made when the player intended a "Stop" or "Alert" this assumption should not be applied automatically. Note 2: players suffering from visual impairment may use a spoken bid to clarify their intent prior to releasing the card. I believe the above to be reasonable, fair, and legal while giving the same effect as the Swedish regs and easing some of the burdens on TDs and players. 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 Jul 12 18:47:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C8lo415902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:47:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6C8lit15898 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:47:45 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <34VP40PF>; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:45:37 +0200 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:45:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >I don't like this 'pause for thought' at all. We don't need it when dealing >with an inadvertent call. Because at the moment we can't change a bidding >card when a player has produced it mechanically without having made up his >mind what call to make. But we can if he knows what to do, but took the >wrong card. There is no need to make that distinction in my opinion. > >ton Is this "pause for thought" thing not a remainder from the time we didn't use bidding boxes yet? When you say a call, you know immediately if you made the correct call, so whether there was "pause of thought" or not is quickly established. When you pull a bidding card, you still have to verify that you pulled the correct one. That could take some time to happen. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 19:26:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C9Pxl22777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:25:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6C9Pqt22734 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:25:53 +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; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:25:02 +0200 Message-ID: <007201c10ab4$87af7ae0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:25:02 +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 f6C9Ptt22747 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 10:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > In-Reply-To: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > Let us not be too harsh on the Swedes. > > Here are the regulations on bidding box usage from the St John's Wood > (North) BC. (This club opened for one night only and bidding boxes were > not actually in use but if it does happen again they will apply). > > Procedure for use of bidding boxes: > > In making a call the player should remove his intended call from the > bidding box and inspect the face of the card to ensure it is the one > intended. He should place the card face down on the table in front of him > and release it after a final check. If, during this process the player > becomes aware that the call is not his intended one he must say something > and/or immediately attempt to return the cards to the bidding box. For > L25a ruling purposes TDs will assume that this procedure has been followed > and thus L25a no longer applies after the card has been released. Note 1: > where a call has been made when the player intended a "Stop" or "Alert" > this assumption should not be applied automatically. Note 2: players > suffering from visual impairment may use a spoken bid to clarify their > intent prior to releasing the card. > > I believe the above to be reasonable, fair, and legal while giving the > same effect as the Swedish regs and easing some of the burdens on TDs and > players. > > Tim West-Meads > To some extend this is certainly reasonable. The part that makes it unreasonable is that we demand from BB users to look at what they're bidding, while we're not requiring spoken bidders to listen to what they are saying. If a BB user according to St. Johns' and Swedish regulations inadvertantly would pull the 3C card, not concentrate and put it on the table, he would be barred from taking it back to the intended 2NT call. If a spoken bidder inadvertantly says 'Three Clubs' (!?), his LHO thinks for five minutes about what on earth 3C could mean in this auction and finally asks partner about the 3C bid, the spoken bidder can freely correct it with the words: 'Three clubs? Did I really say that? I meant, anyhow, to say 2NT!' (Not in Sweden due to the Swedish interpretation of "pause for thought".) It's this difference that makes it unreasonable. It's even more unreasonable when you think of the fact that it is pretty difficult to say 'One spade' when you really mean 'One heart' while it is very easy to bid 1S in stead of 1H with a BB (especially if you have thick fingers ;o). 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 Jul 12 19:27:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6C9RJf23254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:27:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6C9RDt23214 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:27:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.7.111]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010712092454.UALP295.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:24:54 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:30:00 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > In-Reply-To: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > Let us not be too harsh on the Swedes. > > Here are the regulations on bidding box usage from the St John's Wood > (North) BC. (This club opened for one night only and bidding boxes were > not actually in use but if it does happen again they will apply). > > Procedure for use of bidding boxes: > > In making a call the player should remove his intended call from the > bidding box and inspect the face of the card to ensure it is the one > intended. He should place the card face down on the table in front of him > and release it after a final check. If, during this process the player > becomes aware that the call is not his intended one he must say something > and/or immediately attempt to return the cards to the bidding box. For > L25a ruling purposes TDs will assume that this procedure has been followed > and thus L25a no longer applies after the card has been released. Note 1: > where a call has been made when the player intended a "Stop" or "Alert" > this assumption should not be applied automatically. Note 2: players > suffering from visual impairment may use a spoken bid to clarify their > intent prior to releasing the card. > > I believe the above to be reasonable, fair, and legal while giving the > same effect as the Swedish regs and easing some of the burdens on TDs and > players. > > LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: E. Special Conditions to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bidding boxes, screens ≈ penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended). F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has contravened Law 80 in that it's published bidding box regualtions are in contravention of Law 25A. The bidding box regulations indicate that this is the way that bids should be made. I believe the club may issue a PP of players to not observe these regulations, but players should not be denied their Law 25A right to change an inadvertent call. I wonder why this club, that only met once, found a need to be so restrictive, even before a card was played there. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 21:48:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CBlgE13569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:47:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hydra (hydra.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CBlZt13529 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:47:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.222]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GGC00MXXVY7O7@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:32:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:48:33 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000401c10ac8$00d0b7a0$de2928c4@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [2] NO [3] NO 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 Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 6:04 PM Subject: [BLML] Law 25A | | You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. | | Three scenarios follow. | | [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, immediately | attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. | | [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you | look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do | we allow a change? | | [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his | question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to | change it. Do we allow a change? | | | -- | David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK | | For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum | at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 12 22:45:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CCjHm04286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:45:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hydra (hydra.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CCjBt04244 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:45:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.42.82]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GGC00MB2YHXRI@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:27:34 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:58:34 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000601c10acf$b024e300$522a28c4@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | Kooijman, A. wrote: | | >I don't like this 'pause for thought' at all. We don't need it when dealing | >with an inadvertent call. Because at the moment we can't change a bidding | >card when a player has produced it mechanically without having made up his | >mind what call to make. But we can if he knows what to do, but took the | >wrong card. There is no need to make that distinction in my opinion. | > | >ton | Martin Sinot replied: | Is this "pause for thought" thing not a remainder from the time | we didn't use bidding boxes yet? When you say a call, you know | immediately if you made the correct call, so whether there was "pause | of thought" or not is quickly established. When you pull a bidding | card, you still have to verify that you pulled the correct one. That | could take some time to happen. | So in the case of a defender inquiring about partner's possible revoke, the law establishes a revoke that occurred because the revoking defender may have been made aware of the fact by their partner. Now, when partner makes us aware that we made a mistake in the auction, we apply a different set of guidelines for dealing with this unauthorized form of communication. Seems contradictory to me, 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 Fri Jul 13 00:36:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CEaFG09725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:36:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CEa8t09694 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:36:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA27093; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:33:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 12 16:32:31 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5UM773C9A008WC4@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:33:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:31:36 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:33:12 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A To: "'John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF'" , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@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 > [2] NO > [3] NO > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director dear John, could you tell us why your answers for 2 and 3 are 'no' and on which law you base this? if 'pause for thought' is a consideration why this distinction between 1 and the other 2? is your opinion official ACBL policy or more central/south america oriented? ton > | You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > | > | Three scenarios follow. > | > | [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, > immediately > | attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > | > | [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of > his alert you > | look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > change it. Do > | we allow a change? > | > | [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > | question you look down, see what you have done, immediately > attempt to > | change it. Do we allow a change? > | > | > | -- > | David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > | > | For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > | at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > | -- > | > ============================================================== > ========== > | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > | A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > -- > > > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 00:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CEnbv14570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:49:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CEnUt14531 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:49:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA01804; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:47:14 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 12 16:45:55 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5UMNBI37U008WCI@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:46:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:44:36 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:46:09 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A To: "'Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se'" , twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AF@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 > > Let us not be too harsh on the Swedes. > > > > Here are the regulations on bidding box usage from the St > John's Wood > > (North) BC. (This club opened for one night only and > bidding boxes were > > not actually in use but if it does happen again they will apply). > > > > Procedure for use of bidding boxes: > > > > In making a call the player should remove his intended call > from the > > bidding box and inspect the face of the card to ensure it > is the one > > intended. He should place the card face down on the table > in front of him > > and release it after a final check. If, during this > process the player > > becomes aware that the call is not his intended one he must > say something > > and/or immediately attempt to return the cards to the > bidding box. For > > L25a ruling purposes TDs will assume that this procedure > has been followed > > and thus L25a no longer applies after the card has been > released. Note 1: > > where a call has been made when the player intended a > "Stop" or "Alert" > > this assumption should not be applied automatically. Note > 2: players > > suffering from visual impairment may use a spoken bid to > clarify their > > intent prior to releasing the card. > > > > I believe the above to be reasonable, fair, and legal This takes too long already, so my last contribution on this subject. It may be reasonable, it may be fair, but it is not legal. The only considerations we have to make are: was it inadvertent and was there a pause for thought? If both answers are yes the player should be allowed to change his call as long as his partner doesn't make a call thereafter. Did Sweden and those supporting Sweden notice the change in the laws in '97 where the period for this change was enlarged till partner calls. How does this fit with the Swedish approach? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 01:02:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CF1ju18790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:01:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CF1Wt18739 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:01:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6CExEC08395 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:59:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> Anne Jones wrote: > It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has contravened Law 80 in > that it's published bidding box regualtions are in contravention of Law > 25A. > The bidding box regulations indicate that this is the way that bids > should be made. I believe the club may issue a PP of players to not > observe these regulations, but players should not be denied their Law > 25A right to change an inadvertent call. Agreed. But what the regulation essentially does is provide guidance to TDs on when the term inadvertent applies. I don't think it unreasonable to assume a bid is no longer inadvertent when it should have been checked twice. > I wonder why this club, that only met once, found a need to be so > restrictive, even before a card was played there. Actually I don't feel this to be particularly restrictive. Nor do I expect to ever require such a regulation. I was just suggesting an approach to bidding box use that I felt could help clarify L25 interpretations. As I recall we only needed about 5 rulings all night and they were all "No , you are not allowed to look at declarer's hand before putting down dummy" - I think she got the message eventually:-)". 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 Jul 13 02:18:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CGHxP03311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:17:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CGHrt03307 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:17:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA03204 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA17787 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:15:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:15:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107121615.MAA17787@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION > A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the > following duties and powers: > E. Special Conditions > to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written > bidding, bidding boxes, screens ≈ penalty provisions for actions not > transmitted across a screen may be suspended). > F. Supplementary Regulations > to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict > with, these Laws. > > It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has contravened Law 80 in > that it's published bidding box regualtions are in contravention of Law > 25A. Interesting. I come to the opposite conclusion. Even if you think the regulations contravene the language of L25A (and I don't), surely they are made under L80E, not 80F. L80F omits the "not in conflict" qualifier, and the WBFLC has confirmed that the omission is significant. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 02:33:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CGXKs03336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:33:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CGXDt03332 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:33:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 74E832A4C0C; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:27:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 27CCE2A4C86 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:27:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 5269 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2001 13:45:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 12 Jul 2001 13:45:19 -0000 Message-ID: <3B4DA937.9040802@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:42:15 +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: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 559d8acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>> SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. >>> >>> Forgotten to translate 25A in the Swedish edition? You >> >> better use the >> >>> English version. >>> I am not sure we should accept these Swedish greetings. >>> >>> ton >>> -- >> It may be interesting that the Polish edition of the Laws doesn't contain at all the word "inadvertantly" which I believe is a serious flaw in the translation; we only have "pause for thought"; so TDs only ask wheather there was one or not ("did he/you change his bid "in one breath or not?"). So the whole discussion about the bidder's *intention* is well beyond the Polish TDs (naturally, very few bother to check the original). So if you take away the "pause for thought" what shall we get left?:-) IM(H)O the whole discussion proves the the L25 is a very bad piece of legislation; any law that needs to be analyzed at great lengths to understand what it is all about deserves to be shot down. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------------------ O ciuchach, kosmetykach i innych kobiecych sprawach... http://polki.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 Jul 13 02:37:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CGbA304057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:37:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CGb4t04023 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:37:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:33:56 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:34:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a hand from a recent national event - Inter-Club Teams of Eight - all players are experienced and some are experts Dealer N EW vul 108 AK87 A10 AQ986 432 QJ975 83 QJT54 98732 KQ JT4 3 AK6 62 J654 K752 Bidding: West North East South 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) Pass Pass 2S Pass Pass 3H Pass 3NT Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 (1) Precision (2) Not alerted (See text below) (3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had agreed to play a "natural defence". North South had overheard this discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and they might have bid 6C. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 02:46:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CGk4207170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:46:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CGjwt07140 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4ot.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.29]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA03170; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:43:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00a701c10af2$3cbb5d40$1d13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" , "Bridge Laws \(E-mail\)" References: <000601c10acf$b024e300$522a28c4@john> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:46:23 -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 Then would it be contradictory for zones 2 and 7 to refuse a 25A adjustment? We must take care not to compare apples so freely with oranges. Law 25A very plainly allows the timely correction of an inadvertant call. It says nothing about how the (mis)bidder becomes aware of this. I rather suspect we must allow the correction also if the barmaid shows too much cleavage causing the bug eyed bidder to lurch and overturn the table, or if the sprinkler system malfunctions dousing everyone and the mistake is noticed after the game resumes and we try to determine where we left off. Even if a kibitzer highly improperly gasps when the wrong bidding card is placed on the table I would allow the correction. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > | Kooijman, A. wrote: > | > | >I don't like this 'pause for thought' at all. We don't need it when > dealing > | >with an inadvertent call. Because at the moment we can't change a bidding > | >card when a player has produced it mechanically without having made up > his > | >mind what call to make. But we can if he knows what to do, but took the > | >wrong card. There is no need to make that distinction in my opinion. > | > > | >ton > | > > Martin Sinot replied: > > | Is this "pause for thought" thing not a remainder from the time > | we didn't use bidding boxes yet? When you say a call, you know > | immediately if you made the correct call, so whether there was "pause > | of thought" or not is quickly established. When you pull a bidding > | card, you still have to verify that you pulled the correct one. That > | could take some time to happen. > | > > So in the case of a defender inquiring about partner's possible revoke, the > law establishes a revoke that occurred because the revoking defender > may have been made aware of the fact by their partner. > > Now, when partner makes us aware that we made a mistake in the auction, > we apply a different set of guidelines for dealing with this unauthorized > form > of communication. > > Seems contradictory to me, > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 02:53:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CGrRu09765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:53:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CGrLt09738 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4ot.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.29]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA04857; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "mike amos" , References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:53:51 -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 Should we assume that this took place in a jurisdiction where cue bids are alertable? I guess from your email you may be in the uk. It was most puzzling here in ACBL territory as the 2c would not have required an alert. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike amos" To: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM Subject: [BLML] MI? > This is a hand from a recent national event - Inter-Club Teams of Eight - > all players are experienced and some are experts > > Dealer N EW vul > > 108 > AK87 > A10 > AQ986 > 432 QJ975 > 83 QJT54 > 98732 KQ > JT4 3 > AK6 > 62 > J654 > K752 > > Bidding: West North East South > 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) > Pass Pass 2S Pass > Pass 3H Pass 3NT > > Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 > > (1) Precision > (2) Not alerted (See text below) > (3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal > > Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On > arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had > agreed to play a "natural defence". North South had overheard this > discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East > that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid > showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the > failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would > have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and > they might have bid 6C. > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 03:02:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CH2hZ10101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:02:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail1.rdc1.on.home.com (femail1.rdc1.on.home.com [24.2.9.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CH2at10096 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:02:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cr28252a ([24.42.196.173]) by femail1.rdc1.on.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010712170014.BZWV20411.femail1.rdc1.on.home.com@cr28252a>; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:00:14 -0700 Message-ID: <000701c10af4$60cc8a40$adc42a18@flfrd1.on.wave.home.com> From: "Paul Hardy" To: "mike amos" , References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:02:05 -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 In the ACBL the 2C bid is not alterable, where are you from? ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike amos" To: Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 12:34 PM Subject: [BLML] MI? > This is a hand from a recent national event - Inter-Club Teams of Eight - > all players are experienced and some are experts > > Dealer N EW vul > > 108 > AK87 > A10 > AQ986 > 432 QJ975 > 83 QJT54 > 98732 KQ > JT4 3 > AK6 > 62 > J654 > K752 > > Bidding: West North East South > 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) > Pass Pass 2S Pass > Pass 3H Pass 3NT > > Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 > > (1) Precision > (2) Not alerted (See text below) > (3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal > > Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On > arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had > agreed to play a "natural defence". North South had overheard this > discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East > that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid > showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the > failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would > have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and > they might have bid 6C. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 03:04:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CH4OC10116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:04:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CH4Ht10112 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:04:18 +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 f6CH1w402092; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:01:58 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6CH1vH08670; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:01:57 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:01:57 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA10744; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:01:57 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA22461; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:01:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:01:56 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200107121701.SAA22461@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Jul 12 17:41:58 2001 Hi Mike, mamos wwrote: > Dealer N EW vul > > 108 > AK87 > A10 > AQ986 > 432 QJ975 > 83 QJT54 > 98732 KQ > JT4 3 > AK6 > 62 > J654 > K752 > > Bidding: West North East South > 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) > Pass Pass 2S Pass > Pass 3H Pass 3NT > > Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 > > (1) Precision > (2) Not alerted (See text below) > (3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal > > Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On > arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had > agreed to play a "natural defence". North South had overheard this > discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East > that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid > showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the > failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would > have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and > they might have bid 6C. As I understand it, N/S/W thought "natural defence" meant bids were natural. With this evidence, and the fact that I agree with N/S/W, I rule on the basis that EW had the agreement that bids were natural, which East then misunderstood. On that basis, there is no MI. So, no infraction, score stands? (East has UI from the non-alert of 2C but pass is not an LA when 2C(X) is passed to him.) Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 03:35:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CHYvC19176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:34:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CHYnt19139 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:34:50 +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 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:28:08 -0700 Message-ID: <006c01c10af8$91dafe60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws \(E-mail\)" References: <000601c10acf$b024e300$522a28c4@john> <00a701c10af2$3cbb5d40$1d13f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:27:41 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Craig Senior" > Then would it be contradictory for zones 2 and 7 to refuse a 25A > adjustment? We must take care not to compare apples so freely > with oranges. > > Law 25A very plainly allows the timely correction of an > inadvertant call. It says nothing about how the (mis)bidder > becomes aware of this. I rather suspect we must allow the > correction also if the barmaid shows too much cleavage causing > the bug eyed bidder to lurch and overturn the table, or if the > sprinkler system malfunctions dousing everyone and the mistake > is noticed after the game resumes and we try to determine where > we left off. Even if a kibitzer highly improperly gasps when the > wrong bidding card is placed on the table I would allow the > correction. > But surely not if partner gasps? (L16A) Marv Marvin L. French 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 Fri Jul 13 03:35:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CHZ7H19228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:35:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CHYnt19135 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:34:49 +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 ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:28:07 -0700 Message-ID: <006b01c10af8$913ac6c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8A8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3B4DA937.9040802@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:23:29 -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: "Konrad Ciborowski" > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >>>> SBF's LC: Too late, you have released the bidding cards. > >>> > >>> Forgotten to translate 25A in the Swedish edition? You > >> > >> better use the > >> > >>> English version. > >>> I am not sure we should accept these Swedish greetings. > >>> > >>> ton > >>> -- > >> > > > It may be interesting that the Polish edition of the Laws doesn't > contain at all the word > "inadvertantly" which I believe is a serious flaw in the translation; we > only have "pause > for thought"; so TDs only ask wheather there was one or not ("did he/you > change his > bid "in one breath or not?"). So the whole discussion about the bidder's > *intention* > is well beyond the Polish TDs (naturally, very few bother to check the > original). > So if you take away the "pause for thought" what shall we get left?:-) > IM(H)O the whole discussion proves the the L25 is a very bad piece of > legislation; > any law that needs to be analyzed at great lengths to understand what it > is all about deserves to be shot down. > I suggest "obviously unintended," which does not include a change of call that could have been influenced by partner's Alert, Announcement, or discernible body language. Omit "without pause for thought." Use simple language instead of lawyerese: Until his partner calls, a player may change an obviously unintended call. If legal,... Or "incontrovertibly unintended," if you insist. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Fri Jul 13 03:38:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CHcAV20258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:38:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CHc3t20225 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:38:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25939; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:35:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200107121735.KAA25939@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:02:05 EDT." <000701c10af4$60cc8a40$adc42a18@flfrd1.on.wave.home.com> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:35:41 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > In the ACBL the 2C bid is not alterable, where are you from? > From: "mike amos" Seems like the answer to the question appeared two lines below the question . . . -- 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 Jul 13 03:55:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CHt2C26099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:55:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CHsut26068 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:54:57 +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 ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:48:14 -0700 Message-ID: <007101c10afb$6052e940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:49:33 -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: "Craig Senior" > Should we assume that this took place in a jurisdiction where > cue bids are alertable? I guess from your email you may be in > the uk. It was most puzzling here in ACBL territory as the 2c > would not have required an alert. > Depends on the definition of "cue bid." I believe it to be a bid in a suit known to be held by opener, either through a bid of the suit or an artificial bid showing the suit. Bidding a suit that an opponent has bid artificially is presumed to be natural, showing the suit, which means it is not a cue bid. If the bid shows something else, then it's an Alertable convention. The ACBL Alert Procedure disagrees with me. It says that a bid in a suit shown-but-not-actually-bid by an opponent (e.g., 2H/2S over Flannery 2D) is not a cue bid, and need not be Alerted if natural. "No Alert is required if the opponents have not actually bid the suit." This implies that bidding 2C over an artificial 1C is not a cue bid, a natural meaning is not Alertable, and any other meaning is an Alertable convention. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Fri Jul 13 04:10:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CIAK201416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:10:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CIAEt01388 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 04:10:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26769; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:07:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200107121807.LAA26769@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:01:56 BST." <200107121701.SAA22461@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:07:55 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Jul 12 17:41:58 2001 > Hi Mike, > > mamos wwrote: > > Dealer N EW vul > > > > 108 > > AK87 > > A10 > > AQ986 > > 432 QJ975 > > 83 QJT54 > > 98732 KQ > > JT4 3 > > AK6 > > 62 > > J654 > > K752 > > > > Bidding: West North East South > > 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) > > Pass Pass 2S Pass > > Pass 3H Pass 3NT > > > > Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 > > > > (1) Precision > > (2) Not alerted (See text below) > > (3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal > > > > Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On > > arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had > > agreed to play a "natural defence". North South had overheard this > > discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East > > that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid > > showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the > > failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would > > have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and > > they might have bid 6C. > > As I understand it, N/S/W thought "natural defence" meant bids were > natural. With this evidence, and the fact that I agree with N/S/W, I > rule on the basis that EW had the agreement that bids were natural, > which East then misunderstood. On that basis, there is no MI. I'm not sure I'm convinced. It's clear that a Mistaken Bid is not an infraction, and it's clear that a Mistaken Bid occurs if a player has momentarily forgotten what system he's playing. However, the situation where the two partners have different notions of what their agreements are isn't the same situation---and that appears to be the case here. It's true that "Natural Defence" would probably mean the same thing to most people, including 2C overcall being natural; but that does not imply that E-W had an agreement and that East just violated their system. Rather, I think the evidence is that East and West were playing different systems, and hadn't really agreed on what their agreements were. I'm not sure how such cases are supposed to be handled, but it seems OK to me for the Director to rule Mistaken Explanation, based on the footnote to Law 75D2. Of course, ruling "Mistaken Explanation" doesn't mean we adjust. First we have to figure out if N-S were likely enough to get to 6C, and that's not obvious. I'd have to know more about N-S's system, I think. I do think that if N-S get to 6C, they will be forced to make it. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 05:34:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CJYUp22520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:34:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CJYOt22516 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:34:25 +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 LAA13633 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:32:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:31:36 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Tim West-meads wrote: [some stuff about a club that had a regulation about checking one's bid before releasing the bidding cards] > > I believe the above to be reasonable, fair, and legal while giving the > same effect as the Swedish regs and easing some of the burdens on TDs and > players. > I agree with this sentiment. And, interestingly, when bidding boxes were new at the club level, roughly half the clubs used just such a policy. (I play in the northwestern USA and bid-boxes at clubs were an early-90s phenomenon.) I don't know exactly when the mood started to shift to being more liberal with bidding-box procedure, but it seemed to roughly coincide with the 1997 laws changes. I ran into this the first time I "guest-directed" at a club I didn't usually play at, when I gave a ruling the only way I'd seen it done. The players accepted without protest, but the club manager took me aside after the game and said they tended to do it the other way in her club. I personally favour the Swedish interpretation of "pause for thought" throughout the laws, but since the ACBL doesn't appear to see it my way, I am (reluctantly) obeying the prevailing rules when I direct. It really should fall in the "we can't read their minds" category like "could have known" does. As I've mentioned before, in my area it makes almost no difference which way we go with the bid-box regulations. The vast majority of players here would refuse under any circumstance to correct a misbid if they didn't notice within the first couple seconds, and (right or wrong) regard it as grossly unethical to seek to change it whether the laws allow it or not. (With obvious exceptions for those with obvious problems with using the boxes - poor eyesight, shaky hands, and such.) I would love to see the words "for thought" stricken from the laws every place they occur immediately following the word "pause" in the next addition of the laws, along with axing 25B. 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 Jul 13 05:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CJkYG22537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:46:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CJkTt22533 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:46:29 +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 LAA14108 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:44:51 -0800 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:43:41 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? In-Reply-To: <007101c10afb$6052e940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > Depends on the definition of "cue bid." I believe it to be a bid in a suit > known to be held by opener, either through a bid of the suit or an > artificial bid showing the suit. Bidding a suit that an opponent has bid > artificially is presumed to be natural, showing the suit, which means it is > not a cue bid. If the bid shows something else, then it's an Alertable > convention. > > The ACBL Alert Procedure disagrees with me. It says that a bid in a suit > shown-but-not-actually-bid by an opponent (e.g., 2H/2S over Flannery 2D) is > not a cue bid, and need not be Alerted if natural. "No Alert is required if > the opponents have not actually bid the suit." > > This implies that bidding 2C over an artificial 1C is not a cue bid, a > natural meaning is not Alertable, and any other meaning is an Alertable > convention. It implies natural 2C over artifical 1C is not alertable, but it doesn't exactly say one way or the other whether Michaels becomes alertable or not. I think it should be. However ... not too long ago I had this happen: I opened 2C (strong and artificial, standard american), 3C on my left, 3S from partner, 4H on my right, nothing alerted. I doubled since it was an obvious misfit for both sides and we had 25+ HCP; 3C turned out to be Michaels and they racked up 790; the director looked at me like I was from Mars when I asked for an adjustment, saying that "both meanings of 3C are completely normal in this auction." I seem to recall being rather steamed about that for the rest of the round and blowing another board because I couldn't concentrate. (I forget the name of the TD, but it was a reasonably well-respected one in our area.) I am liking the "alert all conventions" approach better all the time. Such is life in the ACBL. 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 Jul 13 07:21:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CLIMd03080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:18:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CLIGt03076 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:18:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA18189 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA19030 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:15:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107122115.RAA19030@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Robin Barker > So, no infraction, score stands? (East has UI from the non-alert > of 2C but pass is not an LA when 2C(X) is passed to him.) While I agree that pass isn't a LA, surely 2H is. And I think there is an argument that 2S is suggested over 2H. If East knows that West is not playing him for the majors, bidding 2S now may enable him to bid 3H later (over 3C from partner???), showing both his suits. I would certainly not want to rule before asking East why he chose 2S (his weaker suit) rather than 2H. Perhaps he will have a convincing explanation, or perhaps I'm simply wrong about "suggested over another." (It wouldn't, alas, be the first time.) Still, it seems worth inquiring. If 2S was indeed suggested by the UI, then it looks as though NS get at least 500 and maybe more in 2Hx or possibly a lot more in some higher contract by EW. Of course we would have to obtain evidence on how the bidding might go after 2H, but given that West passed 2S, I don't see why he wouldn't pass 2H. Or maybe he would correct to 3C, after which things get really ugly for EW. Again my analysis may not be the best. The play problem in hearts is especially complex because the deck seems to have two H-8's and no H-9. :-) The main point, of course, is that aside from the MI, the UI problem is far from easy. Or at least it doesn't look easy to me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 07:34:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CLVe803094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:31:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CLVZt03090 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:31:35 +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 RAA18648 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA19121 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:29:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:29:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107122129.RAA19121@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > I would love to see the words "for thought" stricken from the laws every > place they occur immediately following the word "pause" in the next > addition of the laws, along with axing 25B. Kaplan explained that "for thought" was added in order to take care of someone who realized his mistake at once but couldn't get the corrective words out in time. (Kaplan's example was something like "Two spa... no wait, I mean, this is terrible, I meant, umm, really, two hearts.") I think this particular problem could be dealt with by requiring the player to _initiate_ (not necessarily _complete_) his correction without pause, and deleting the "for thought" as Gordon suggests. I am not sure, however, that the above deals with the real problem, which in my opinion is the "inadvertent" part. That is an example of mind reading, which we ought to eliminate. What about allowing any correction provided it is _initiated_ without pause? The effect seems to amount to something pretty close to the Swedish rules. Of course for bidding boxes, it's also pretty close to "no corrections," at least if the time a call is considered "made" is changed to something like "when the card is placed on the table." There is still a slight difference for spoken bidding, however, and probably for written bidding as well. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 07:53:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CLp2603116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CLovt03112 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 07:50:58 +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, 12 Jul 2001 14:44:17 -0700 Message-ID: <00c001c10b1c$596585e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 14:44:50 -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: "Gordon Bower" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > The ACBL Alert Procedure...says that a bid in a suit > > shown-but-not-actually-bid by an opponent (e.g., 2H/2S over Flannery 2D) is > > not a cue bid, and need not be Alerted if natural. "No Alert is required if > > the opponents have not actually bid the suit." > > > > This implies that bidding 2C over an artificial 1C is not a cue bid, a > > natural meaning is not Alertable, and any other meaning is an Alertable > > convention. > > It implies natural 2C over artifical 1C is not alertable, but it doesn't > exactly say one way or the other whether Michaels becomes alertable or > not. I think it should be. Cue bids over an opening bid are not Alertable unless the cue bid has a highly unusual meaning. But 2C over artificial 1C is not a cue bid (I infer) according to the ACBL. Michaels must therefore be Alerted under the general requirement in the Alert Procedure that "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED." Exceptions to that policy are provided (Stayman, etc.) in the Alert Procedure, and bogus cue bids, Michaels or not, of an artificially bid suit are not one of the exceptions. Since this is not explicitly stated, as you say, others may reasonably have different interpretations. > However ... not too long ago I had this happen: > > I opened 2C (strong and artificial, standard american), 3C on my left, 3S > from partner, 4H on my right, nothing alerted. I doubled since it was an > obvious misfit for both sides and we had 25+ HCP; 3C turned out to be > Michaels and they racked up 790; the director looked at me like I was from > Mars when I asked for an adjustment, saying that "both meanings of 3C are > completely normal in this auction." I seem to recall being rather steamed > about that for the rest of the round and blowing another board because I > couldn't concentrate. (I forget the name of the TD, but it was a > reasonably well-respected one in our area.) Obviously I feel strongly that 3C was Alertable in ACBL-land, but that doesn't mean the TD was surely in error. I am sometimes wrong, believe it or not. :)) Someone else please check with Gary, as he must be tired of getting my constant e-mails. gary.blaiss@acbl.org Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California (who is not a TD) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 09:06:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CN3CO03206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:03:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6CN36t03202 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:03:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-124-15-dial-as4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.124.15]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6CN0kg20765 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:00:47 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <3B4E2C17.10B0AC9C@ptialaska.net> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:00:39 -0800 From: Michael Schmahl Organization: poor X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <00c001c10b1c$596585e0$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: > > > > The ACBL Alert Procedure...says that a bid in a suit > > > shown-but-not-actually-bid by an opponent (e.g., 2H/2S over Flannery 2D) > is > > > not a cue bid, and need not be Alerted if natural. "No Alert is required > if > > > the opponents have not actually bid the suit." > > > > > > This implies that bidding 2C over an artificial 1C is not a cue bid, a > > > natural meaning is not Alertable, and any other meaning is an Alertable > > > convention. That doesn't really follow. 2C over Precision 1C is a bid in a suit bid-but-not-actually-shown, which is different than shown-but-not-actually-bid. I don't see that "cuebid" is actually defined anywhere in the Alert procedure. However, the copy of _The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge_ ((c) 1974) that I have claims that a cuebid is either "[a bid] in the opponent's suit" or "[a bid] at a high level to show controls after a suit has been agreed". Since clubs is not "the opponent's suit", 2C is not a cuebid. This seems to support your position. However, on every edition of the ACBL CC I've seen the checkboxes for "Strong T/O" and "2 suits" over artificial bids are BLACK, implying that these bids are not alertable. > Obviously I feel strongly that 3C was Alertable in ACBL-land, but that > doesn't mean the TD was surely in error. I am sometimes wrong, believe it or > not. :)) > > Someone else please check with Gary, as he must be tired of getting my > constant e-mails. gary.blaiss@acbl.org I think I will do this. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 09:53:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6CNoqx05046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:50:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6CNokt05042 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:50:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-99-124.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.99.124]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6CNmGP09071; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:48:17 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "BLML" References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:47:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > > > > LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION > A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws > has the following duties and powers: > E. Special Conditions > to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written > bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not > transmitted across a screen may be suspended). > F. Supplementary Regulations > to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in > conflict with, these Laws. > > It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has > contravened Law 80 in that it's published bidding box regualtions > are in contravention of Law 25A. > +=+ Once more the Geneva ruling applies. The condition in 80F applies to regulations made under 80F and not to regulations made under other sections of the Laws. In point of fact there is no conflict with the laws where a law authorizes a regulation to be made and places no restriction on its content. ~ 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 Jul 13 10:28:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D0PgW05068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:25:42 +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 f6D0Pat05064 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:25:37 +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 15Kqjl-000IxN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:23:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:21:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> >Let us not be too harsh on the Swedes. > >Here are the regulations on bidding box usage from the St John's Wood >(North) BC. (This club opened for one night only and bidding boxes were >not actually in use but if it does happen again they will apply). The St John's Wood bridge Club (northern annexe) has a wonderful host and entirely the most beautiful kibitzer in North London. Of course, the ability to remove a bidding card from the bidding box assumes that one can indeed focus on the bidding box, and thus I think this rule will shortly be discontinued owing to the likelihood of filling the bidding boxes with red wine. Anyway why would you want to inspect the face of a bidding card when there is a much more lovely face to look at? The Wendy Coup strikes again, and it is just Tim trying to get an edge over us artisans. cheers john > >Procedure for use of bidding boxes: > Attempt to grasp bidding card. Pour red wine on table. Wipe up wine, dropping box on floor etc etc. > >Tim West-Meads > -- 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 Jul 13 10:32:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D0TiW05080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:29:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6D0Tat05076 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:29:37 +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 15Kqne-000JMe-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:27:18 +0000 Message-ID: <$oV4mgACAkT7EwJa@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:25:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> >Anne Jones wrote: > >> It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has contravened Law 80 in >> that it's published bidding box regualtions are in contravention of Law >> 25A. > >> The bidding box regulations indicate that this is the way that bids >> should be made. I believe the club may issue a PP of players to not >> observe these regulations, but players should not be denied their Law >> 25A right to change an inadvertent call. > >Agreed. But what the regulation essentially does is provide guidance to >TDs on when the term inadvertent applies. I don't think it unreasonable >to assume a bid is no longer inadvertent when it should have been checked >twice. > >> I wonder why this club, that only met once, found a need to be so >> restrictive, even before a card was played there. > >Actually I don't feel this to be particularly restrictive. Nor do I >expect to ever require such a regulation. I was just suggesting an >approach to bidding box use that I felt could help clarify L25 >interpretations. As I recall we only needed about 5 rulings all night and >they were all "No , you are not allowed to look at >declarer's hand before putting down dummy" - I think she got the message >eventually:-)". > >Tim. > Today she said "Merde, I cannot look at your 'and can I?" to me. "Ouai" I said. -- 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 Jul 13 10:36:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D0XiS05092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:33:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f6D0Xct05088 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:33:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15KqrX-000Dvl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:31:20 +0000 Message-ID: <4ok52sAGEkT7EwIc@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:29:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos>, mike amos writes >This is a hand from a recent national event - Inter-Club Teams of Eight - >all players are experienced and some are experts > >Dealer N EW vul > > 108 > AK87 > A10 > AQ986 >432 QJ975 >83 QJT54 >98732 KQ >JT4 3 > AK6 > 62 > J654 > K752 > >Bidding: West North East South > 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) > Pass Pass 2S Pass > Pass 3H Pass 3NT > >Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 > >(1) Precision >(2) Not alerted (See text below) >(3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal > >Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On >arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had >agreed to play a "natural defence". North South had overheard this >discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East >that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid >showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the >failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would >have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and >they might have bid 6C. > Result stands. No MI. No UI. No damage. -- 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 Jul 13 10:40:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D0biG05105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f87.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6D0bet05101 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:35:17 -0700 Received: from 172.135.182.187 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:35:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.135.182.187] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:35:17 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2001 00:35:17.0964 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0BF28C0:01C10B33] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Cue bids over an opening bid are not Alertable unless the cue bid has a >highly unusual meaning. But 2C over artificial 1C is not a cue bid (I >infer) >according to the ACBL. Michaels must therefore be Alerted under the general >requirement in the Alert Procedure that "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE >ALERTED." Exceptions to that policy are provided (Stayman, etc.) in the >Alert Procedure, and bogus cue bids, Michaels or not, of an artificially >bid >suit are not one of the exceptions. My understanding, and perhaps a common misunderstanding, is that in the ACBL, 1 monkey-2 monkies is never alertable unless both monkies are natural. If the actual alert proceedure is different, I'd like to know. -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 Jul 13 15:40:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D5cl112618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:38:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6D5cft12588 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:38:42 +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 ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:31:57 -0700 Message-ID: <011a01c10b5d$af83d080$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00c001c10b1c$596585e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B4E2C17.10B0AC9C@ptialaska.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:33:35 -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: "Michael Schmahl" > However, on every edition of the > ACBL CC I've seen the checkboxes for "Strong T/O" and "2 suits" over > artificial bids are BLACK, implying that these bids are not alertable. > The ACBL CC is not always reliable on such matters. You have to go back to the documents on which it is based. I think the box for Michaels under artificial bids should be a red box. Since there is no clear answer in the Alert Procedure itself, whoever made up the CC was guessing. However, that black box on the CC is a *de facto* establishment of the non-Alertable meaning, since TDs will certainly go by that. I imagine Gary will look at the CC and say not Alertable. The Alert Procedure change that made Michaels not Alertable a few years back was an abomination, and it was entirely wrong to preprint "Michaels" in the Direct Cue Bid area. It should be a blank line, so those using Top and Bottom or Top and Middle cue bids could enter their agreement easily and use the check boxes. Red check boxes! Marv Marvin L. French 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 Fri Jul 13 16:00:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D5wot19804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:58:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6D5wit19767 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:58:45 +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 ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:52:04 -0700 Message-ID: <012f01c10b60$7ea39420$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:46:15 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >Cue bids over an opening bid are not Alertable unless the cue bid has a > >highly unusual meaning. But 2C over artificial 1C is not a cue bid (I > >infer) > >according to the ACBL. Michaels must therefore be Alerted under the general > >requirement in the Alert Procedure that "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE > >ALERTED." Exceptions to that policy are provided (Stayman, etc.) in the > >Alert Procedure, and bogus cue bids, Michaels or not, of an artificially > >bid suit are not one of the exceptions. > > My understanding, and perhaps a common misunderstanding, is that in the > ACBL, 1 monkey-2 monkies is never alertable unless both monkies are natural. > If the actual alert proceedure is different, I'd like to know. > The AP just isn't that clear, Todd. The AP says that cue bids that have a "very unusual or unexpected meaning" must be Alerted. Around here it's very usual to play 2C over artificial 1C as natural, so any other treatment would be very unusual. Besides, the AP says cue bid, not monkies. Who says that bidding a suit previously bid artificially by an opponent is a cue bid? If, as the AP says, bidding 2H/2S over a Flannery 2D is not a cue bid, then surely 3D would not be a cue bid either. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Fri Jul 13 16:24:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D6MUd24254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:22:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6D6MPt24250 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:22:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:15:44 -0700 Message-ID: <013001c10b63$cd3ed740$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:19:37 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Once more the Geneva ruling applies. The condition in 80F > applies to regulations made under 80F and not to regulations > made under other sections of the Laws. > As I recall, the "Geneva ruling" was not made by the WBFLC, and was not accepted by it. Whatever, I never did understand what Grattan says here, which he has said before. L80F says that SO regulations must not conflict with any of the laws. That's all it says. How can anyone make, or not make, a regulation "under L80F"? To write a regulation that conflicts with a law, and then say that L80F doesn't apply to it, is Newspeak. > In point of fact there > is no conflict with the laws where a law authorizes a regulation > to be made and places no restriction on its content. L80F places a restriction on every regulation. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Fri Jul 13 17:33:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D7VDA12359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:31:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6D7V7t12355 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:31:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f6D7SiX12986; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:28:44 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA10327; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:28:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:28:44 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John McGregor: > > | You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > > | Three scenarios follow. > > | > > | [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, > > immediately > > | attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > > | > > | [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of > > his alert you > > | look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > > change it. Do > > | we allow a change? > > > [2] NO Now consider: Scenario 2a: Holding AQx/KJxx/Qxxx/Ax, I pull the 1NT card from by box but the 2C sticks to it. Partner alerts 2C. Scenario 2b: Holding xx/x/KQJxxxxx/xx, I open 4D. Partner alerts. The CC says that we are playing Namyats. IMHO, there is a huge difference between 2a and 2b: in 2a, all the alert did was to warn the player about the mispull, in 2b, it made him realize that he was playing a different system. I'd consider this a case to take the player away from the table and find out what he tried to do. Then return and tell the others that this is a 25a or 25b case. > > | [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > > | question you look down, see what you have done, immediately > > attempt to > > | change it. Do we allow a change? > > [3] NO OK, 1NT-3NT (at least that is what you think), LHO asks if you are playing Gerber. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 19:30:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6D9S3X12416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:28:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hydra (hydra.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6D9Rtt12412 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:27:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.42.161]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GGE00015K5DLJ@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 03:12:52 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:13:48 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A To: "Kooijman, A." , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Bill & Bud Schoder , Grattan Endicott Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | John wrote: | > [2] NO | > [3] NO | > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director | Ton wrote: | | could you tell us why your answers for 2 and 3 are 'no' and on which law you | base this? | | if 'pause for thought' is a consideration why this distinction between 1 and | the other 2? | | is your opinion official ACBL policy or more central/south america oriented? | | ton | | > | You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. | > | | > | Three scenarios follow. | > | | > | [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, | > immediately | > | attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. | > | | > | [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of | > his alert you | > | look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to | > change it. Do | > | we allow a change? | > | | > | [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his | > | question you look down, see what you have done, immediately | > attempt to | > | change it. Do we allow a change? | > | | > | | > | -- I fail to see where this is not covered under Law 16A. In the first case, the player noticed their own mistake and Law 25A permits the change. In the second and third, the player notices the mistake ONLY when their partner alerted or answered a question. Both of these acts by partner are UI for the player who made the mistake. When that happens, the player can no longer save themselves becuase it was their partner that brought it to their attention, or may have brought it to their attention. So, there you go, John P.S. I am not against the ACBL but I have nothing to do with their policies or interpretations. Here in Zone 5, we try to follow the WBF's lead. 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 Fri Jul 13 20:40:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAcl912495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DAcKt12463 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:21 +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 15L0If-000Fmr-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:36:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:07:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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 >Agreed. But what the regulation essentially does is provide guidance to >TDs on when the term inadvertent applies. I don't think it unreasonable >to assume a bid is no longer inadvertent when it should have been checked >twice. Why not? If it is inadvertent, then it is inadvertent, and the fact that a player has not checked when required to hardly affects that. As you write an article here you should check it for grammar, spelling, and so on. At the end normal care says you should re-read it. Does that mean that if you post an article with an obvious spelling error in it we should say it you clearly intended to put a grammatical error in because "it should have been checked twice"? No. -- 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 Jul 13 20:40:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAclG12494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DAcNt12468 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:27 +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 15L0If-000Fmq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:35:59 +0000 Message-ID: <9nsB5tABcsT7EwIp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:01:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <000601c10acf$b024e300$522a28c4@john> In-Reply-To: <000601c10acf$b024e300$522a28c4@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF writes >So in the case of a defender inquiring about partner's possible revoke, the >law establishes a revoke that occurred because the revoking defender >may have been made aware of the fact by their partner. > >Now, when partner makes us aware that we made a mistake in the auction, >we apply a different set of guidelines for dealing with this unauthorized >form >of communication. > >Seems contradictory to me, And to me - but that does not make it wrong. There are a lot of circumstances where things that appear analogous to some of us are treated differently [a BLML regular at this moment is arguing on RGB that our pass out of turn law is wrong because it is inconsistent with the bid out of turn law] but when we are interpreting a Law we cannot rely on a position we see as analogous. After all, perhaps the law- makers do not see it as analogous. -- 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 Jul 13 20:40:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAcej12492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 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 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 f6DAcJt12461 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:20 +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 15L0If-000FmX-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:36:00 +0000 Message-ID: <0n6DZUAZbsT7Ewp2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:00:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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 >In-Reply-To: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> >Let us not be too harsh on the Swedes. > >Here are the regulations on bidding box usage from the St John's Wood >(North) BC. (This club opened for one night only and bidding boxes were >not actually in use but if it does happen again they will apply). > >Procedure for use of bidding boxes: > >In making a call the player should remove his intended call from the >bidding box and inspect the face of the card to ensure it is the one >intended. He should place the card face down on the table in front of him >and release it after a final check. If, during this process the player >becomes aware that the call is not his intended one he must say something >and/or immediately attempt to return the cards to the bidding box. For >L25a ruling purposes TDs will assume that this procedure has been followed >and thus L25a no longer applies after the card has been released. Note 1: >where a call has been made when the player intended a "Stop" or "Alert" >this assumption should not be applied automatically. Note 2: players >suffering from visual impairment may use a spoken bid to clarify their >intent prior to releasing the card. > >I believe the above to be reasonable, fair, and legal while giving the >same effect as the Swedish regs and easing some of the burdens on TDs and >players. Reasonable or fair, perhaps. But legal? If a player makes an inadvertent call and attempts to change it immediately, the fact that he has not followed the regs does not alter the Law. You know that not all players will follow the stated procedure. Perhaps they should but why are they not allowed a ruling from 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 Jul 13 20:40:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAcfD12493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DAcKt12462 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:21 +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 15L0If-000FmW-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:36:02 +0000 Message-ID: <9XvBFJAOVsT7Ewry@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:54:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001401c109f6$955401c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003301c10aa2$9ece8980$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <003301c10aa2$9ece8980$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >From: David Stevenson >> I would have thought their answer in the first case was based on a >> regulation in conflict with the Laws. >> >For what it's worth, I think so too. I also firmly believe that the pause for >thought starts at the moment that the mistake was discovered. OK - let's have a word in two weeks time and see what ensues! -- 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 Jul 13 20:40:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAcqe12497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:52 +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 f6DAcWt12485 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:33 +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 15L0Ip-000FmX-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:36:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:10:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <200107122115.RAA19030@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107122115.RAA19030@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >I would certainly not want to rule before asking East why he chose 2S >(his weaker suit) rather than 2H. Perhaps he will have a convincing >explanation, or perhaps I'm simply wrong about "suggested over another." >(It wouldn't, alas, be the first time.) Still, it seems worth >inquiring. > >If 2S was indeed suggested by the UI, then it looks as though NS get at >least 500 and maybe more in 2Hx or possibly a lot more in some higher >contract by EW. Of course we would have to obtain evidence on how the >bidding might go after 2H, but given that West passed 2S, I don't see >why he wouldn't pass 2H. Or maybe he would correct to 3C, after which >things get really ugly for EW. Again my analysis may not be the best. >The play problem in hearts is especially complex because the deck seems >to have two H-8's and no H-9. :-) > >The main point, of course, is that aside from the MI, the UI problem is >far from easy. Or at least it doesn't look easy to me. Without disagreeing with the analysis, I am surprised by the methodology. You say we need evidence how the bidding might go, and suggest that analysis may not be perfect. But surely, you just have to come up with a few fairly likely auctions and results, then apply the relevant law [L12C2 or L12C3] according to the jurisdiction? In other words, I am worrying that you are suggesting we want to know how the bidding would have gone without the infraction. We do not need to know this, and I think some people have difficulty with these adjustments from failure to realise this. We just need to find some possibilities, not to decide between them. I think this is important. I have seen A+/A- given where the logic has been that the TD or AC cannot decide what would have happened. Ok, everyone knows what I think of A+/A- in such a situation, but it is the reason behind it that worries 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 Fri Jul 13 20:40:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAcdt12490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DAcJt12460 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:20 +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 15L0If-000Fmp-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:36:01 +0000 Message-ID: <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:01:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >> From: "Tim West-meads" >> LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION >> A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws >> has the following duties and powers: >> E. Special Conditions >> to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as >written >> bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions >not >> transmitted across a screen may be suspended). >> F. Supplementary Regulations >> to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in >> conflict with, these Laws. >> >> It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has >> contravened Law 80 in that it's published bidding box regualtions >> are in contravention of Law 25A. >+=+ Once more the Geneva ruling applies. The condition in 80F >applies to regulations made under 80F and not to regulations >made under other sections of the Laws. In point of fact there >is no conflict with the laws where a law authorizes a regulation >to be made and places no restriction on its content. Before I make a fool of myself again, please can you confirm what I understand the above to say. If I understand you correctly, a reg under L80E is allowed to conflict with the laws. Thus the following reg is legal under L80E: Written bidding: Players make their calls by writing on the bidding pad, with the calls going anti-clockwise around the table. -- 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 Jul 13 20:40:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAcov12496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DAcUt12482 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:38:31 +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 15L0In-000Fmq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:36:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:08:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior writes >Should we assume that this took place in a jurisdiction where >cue bids are alertable? I guess from your email you may be in >the uk. It was most puzzling here in ACBL territory as the 2c >would not have required an alert. Now that *is* interesting. ACBL alerting is usually efficient rather than memorable, but you are saying that over a Strong Club, where it is completely standard for 2C to show clubs, that an artificial 2C does not require an alert? Anyway, you are correct. Over a Strong Club, 2C with no alert is natural in this case: artificial 2C bids are alertable. >> Bidding: West North East South >> 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) >> Pass Pass 2S Pass >> Pass 3H Pass 3NT >> >> Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 >> >> (1) Precision >> (2) Not alerted (See text below) -- 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 Jul 13 20:45:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DAhZF12549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:43:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DAhTt12545 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:43:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA10022; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:41:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 13 12:39:52 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5VSCKIZAC008V2N@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:40:09 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:38:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:40:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25A To: "'John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF'" , "Kooijman, A." , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Bill & Bud Schoder , Grattan Endicott Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8B4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I fail to see where this is not covered under Law 16A. In the > first case, > the > player noticed their own mistake and Law 25A permits the change. > In the second and third, the player notices the mistake ONLY > when their > partner alerted or answered a question. Both of these acts by > partner are UI > for > the player who made the mistake. When that happens, the > player can no longer > save themselves becuase it was their partner that brought it to their > attention, > or may have brought it to their attention. > > So, there you go, > > John > P.S. I am not against the ACBL but I have nothing to do with > their policies > or > interpretations. Here in Zone 5, we try to follow the WBF's lead. Good to hear that. This makes it possible to advice you to change your opinion. If you want to use the general 16A then 25A for sure should be considered to be a specification which is dominant. The heading of 16 tells that extraneous information might cause an infraction. Using it not automatically is an infraction. This is one of the exceptions. Furthermore is the idea in L16 that the suggestion leads a player when making his choice, with a relation between the extraneous information and the content of the choice made. Read L16A2 please. The only relation here is between the inadvertent call noticed and the extraneous information. The player is not influenced when making a choice between possible logical alternatives, the inadvertent call not being a logical alternative. Once in a while there is reason to appreciate the laws as they are written> 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 Jul 13 22:10:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DC5ho15714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:05:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DC5at15678 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:05:37 +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 OAA10471; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:02:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA05722; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:03:12 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010713140802.00823cd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:08:02 +0200 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cheese (was : CC design ) In-Reply-To: <200107111940.PAA08706@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:40 11/07/01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Michael Farebrother >> Almost. "No F*** Clue". As in "I truly have no idea. That's what it >> means". > >The G-rated version might be "Not (the) Faintest Clue." AG : if it's grated, I'd expect 'Numerous Fragments of Cheese' ?? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 22:16:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DCC7h17921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:12:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DCC1t17908 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:12:01 +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 OAA10236; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:06:12 +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 OAA08921; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:09:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010713141431.0081f240@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:14:31 +0200 To: Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <99roktgeletrk478r8a2cfc3buaftfh2s7@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:43 11/07/01 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >(b) I believe that the most sensible interpretation (which I'd suggest writing >into the laws at some time) in general in these cases is that any information >that a player has a right to acquire just by asking or looking at the table >(e.g., the auction itself, the vulnerability, or the opponents' system) is >always AI, even if he gets it from partner. AG : I'd like to offer a counterexample : the number of tricks already made by both sides. Doesn't L74B4 imply that if partner insists, this is UI, and that any line of play based on this info might be disallowed (which is the usual treatment of UI) ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 22:44:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DCeMU17994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:40:22 +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 f6DCeEt17988 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:40:15 +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 OAA13756; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:34:25 +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 OAA23583; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:37:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:42:45 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] overcast tables Cc: piret@dice.ucl.ac.be Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, As is too often the case, I'm wondering whether I did something incorrect last Saturday. With Gilles, one of my usual partners, we play very loose preempts and overcalls, vulnerability and seat permitting. Bids which may be extra-aggressive are mentioned on our CC, of course, and in our system notes they are signalled by an asterisk. For this reason we nicknamed them 'starry bids'. When such a bid comes up, we alert it and explain eg 'my partner's 3C opening is a plain preempt, but might be extremely aggressive, perhaps a 5-carder'. Last saturday, we wera playing a marathon tournament, where I knew almost every participant and he didn't. One of my pet ideas about bidding is that, if you are aggressive in bidding, you must avoid it against pairs which are even more. So, at a given time, seing who were coming at our table, I said to Gilles : 'no starry conventions against those two, partner' 'huh, let's call that an overcast table', he replied, knowing perfectly well why I suggested it. Half a dozen times in this tournament, I said to Gilles 'next table is overcast, partner', and we bid accordingly. Of course, it is allowed to adopt different strategies against different people, it is even highly recommendable, and you can't avoid to have more-or-less explicit agreements about it (like, some players should be doubled more readily than others). But one thing bothers me : at 'overcast tables', our CC was not correctly filled ! It mentioned wild preempts and atrocious overcalls, and we didn't use them ! I've thought for a while about it, but couldn't come up with a satisfying answer as to what should have been done. Obviously, we are not allowed to have two sets of CCs. Putting on our CC 'possible wild preempts, according to whom we're playing against' may lead to all sorts of trouble against thin-skinned opponents. Alerting, then telling it is not as written on the CC, is not a standard procedure. What do you suggest ? Thak 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 Jul 13 23:10:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DD6SC18642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:06:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DD6Lt18636 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:06:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15L2by-0007QA-06; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:04:02 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.0.204.21]) by fmrl01.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15L2bj-1UKrCaC; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:03:47 +0200 Message-ID: <3B4EF178.39F1235F@vwalther.de> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:02:48 +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 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <4ok52sAGEkT7EwIc@asimere.com> 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 Let me change a just one word in the text: "natural" against "blitiri" which has no meaning. "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > In article <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos>, mike amos > writes > >This is a hand from a recent national event - Inter-Club Teams of Eight - > >all players are experienced and some are experts > > > >Dealer N EW vul > > > > 108 > > AK87 > > A10 > > AQ986 > >432 QJ975 > >83 QJT54 > >98732 KQ > >JT4 3 > > AK6 > > 62 > > J654 > > K752 > > > >Bidding: West North East South > > 1C(a)(1) 2C(2) D(a)(3) > > Pass Pass 2S Pass > > Pass 3H Pass 3NT > > > >Result: 3NT+3 N/S +490 > > > >(1) Precision > >(2) Not alerted (See text below) > >(3) If 2C natural shows 5-6 with Cs or 11+ bal > > > >Director called at the end of play. EW were not a regular partnership. On > >arriving at the table and finding that NS were playing Strong Club they had > >agreed to play "blitiri defence". North South had overheard this > >discussion. West had taken this to indicate that bids were natural - East > >that they were playing as if the 1C were natural - He thought his 2C bid > >showed the majors. North South complained that they had been damaged by the > >failure to alert. If 2C had been alerted as showing majors, South would > >have doubled showing 8+ balanced, North would have continued with 3C and > >they might have bid 6C. > > > Result stands. No MI. No UI. No damage. Since nobody knows what blitiri defence is, the TD should judge according to L 75 ex.2 wrong information. Damage. Result has to be changed. I think the involved players know about their "natural defence" as much as about the "blitiri defence". (They are still discussing the meaning of 2 Clubs) I can see no evidence that 2 Clubs shows the majors in one of the systems. Again: Wrong information. Damage. Result has to be changed. 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 13 23:56:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DDtHT19792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:55:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DDtAt19785 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 23:55:11 +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 PAA27916; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:52:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA04771; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:52:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010713155741.00829100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:57:41 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] ideophones Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, I was very interested in a feature from Volker's last contribution. Wanting to describe something that doesn't exist, he called it 'blitiri'. This reminds me of the theory of ideophones, that (to cut a long explanation short) states that, speaking of something very strange or impossible to describe (like Aliens, useless mechanisms, or answers to absurd riddles), one would use a sound combination which would be quite unusual in the language one uses. Since Volker is German, and since German is a very consonantic language, he would use a combination with many vowels as an ideophone. You see, it can't be German with such a name. The Fench will remember the 'schmilblick', the name given to a generic object which must be guessed by participants to a riddle game on the radio. It has an obvious Germanic tinge, and seems quite strange to French speakers. I would be interested if you, from all corners of the world, could tell me what kinds of words are used in your language to describe non-describable things -the kinds of English 'thingummajig'- ; it would allow me to check the theory of ideophones. Thank yuo in advance 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 Sat Jul 14 00:01:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DE0MD19925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DE0Gt19919 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:00:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.207]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010713135754.JXSP351.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:57:54 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01c10ba4$c7696600$2710ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] overcast tables Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:04:48 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I suggest two sets of CCs. Why is this not allowed? Your CC is supposed to tell opps what you "are" playing against them, not what you "were" playing against other opps. Cheers Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 1:42 PM Subject: [BLML] overcast tables > Dear blmlists, > > As is too often the case, I'm wondering whether I did something incorrect > last Saturday. > > With Gilles, one of my usual partners, we play very loose preempts and > overcalls, vulnerability and seat permitting. Bids which may be > extra-aggressive are mentioned on our CC, of course, and in our system > notes they are signalled by an asterisk. For this reason we nicknamed them > 'starry bids'. When such a bid comes up, we alert it and explain eg 'my > partner's 3C opening is a plain preempt, but might be extremely aggressive, > perhaps a 5-carder'. > > Last saturday, we wera playing a marathon tournament, where I knew almost > every participant and he didn't. > One of my pet ideas about bidding is that, if you are aggressive in > bidding, you must avoid it against pairs which are even more. > So, at a given time, seing who were coming at our table, I said to Gilles : > 'no starry conventions against those two, partner' > 'huh, let's call that an overcast table', he replied, knowing perfectly > well why I suggested it. > > Half a dozen times in this tournament, I said to Gilles 'next table is > overcast, partner', and we bid accordingly. > > Of course, it is allowed to adopt different strategies against different > people, it is even highly recommendable, and you can't avoid to have > more-or-less explicit agreements about it (like, some players should be > doubled more readily than others). > But one thing bothers me : at 'overcast tables', our CC was not correctly > filled ! It mentioned wild preempts and atrocious overcalls, and we didn't > use them ! > > I've thought for a while about it, but couldn't come up with a satisfying > answer as to what should have been done. Obviously, we are not allowed to > have two sets of CCs. Putting on our CC 'possible wild preempts, according > to whom we're playing against' may lead to all sorts of trouble against > thin-skinned opponents. Alerting, then telling it is not as written on the > CC, is not a standard procedure. > > What do you suggest ? > > Thak 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 00:23:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DELQ222310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:21:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [212.61.26.54]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DELJt22304 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 00:21:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from iae.nl.iae.nl (pm14d44.iae.nl [212.61.2.107]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 89F4E20F32 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:18:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00d101c10ba6$7ebee180$20043dd4@nl.iae.nl> From: "Ben Schelen" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] overcast tables Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:16:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Alain, Why not two sets of CC's? Sothat you are doing your utmost to inform the ops about your system and style. Is it forbidden to play the acol system at even numbered tables and the precision system at odd numbered tables? Make another set of CC's in WHITE colour and the "aggressive" ones in RED. You take care of the CC's and put them on the table sothat your partner coming at the table and seeing the colour is informed accordingly. He will give you a big smile. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 2:42 PM Subject: [BLML] overcast tables > Dear blmlists, > > As is too often the case, I'm wondering whether I did something incorrect > last Saturday. > > With Gilles, one of my usual partners, we play very loose preempts and > overcalls, vulnerability and seat permitting. Bids which may be > extra-aggressive are mentioned on our CC, of course, and in our system > notes they are signalled by an asterisk. For this reason we nicknamed them > 'starry bids'. When such a bid comes up, we alert it and explain eg 'my > partner's 3C opening is a plain preempt, but might be extremely aggressive, > perhaps a 5-carder'. > > Last saturday, we wera playing a marathon tournament, where I knew almost > every participant and he didn't. > One of my pet ideas about bidding is that, if you are aggressive in > bidding, you must avoid it against pairs which are even more. > So, at a given time, seing who were coming at our table, I said to Gilles : > 'no starry conventions against those two, partner' > 'huh, let's call that an overcast table', he replied, knowing perfectly > well why I suggested it. > > Half a dozen times in this tournament, I said to Gilles 'next table is > overcast, partner', and we bid accordingly. > > Of course, it is allowed to adopt different strategies against different > people, it is even highly recommendable, and you can't avoid to have > more-or-less explicit agreements about it (like, some players should be > doubled more readily than others). > But one thing bothers me : at 'overcast tables', our CC was not correctly > filled ! It mentioned wild preempts and atrocious overcalls, and we didn't > use them ! > > I've thought for a while about it, but couldn't come up with a satisfying > answer as to what should have been done. Obviously, we are not allowed to > have two sets of CCs. Putting on our CC 'possible wild preempts, according > to whom we're playing against' may lead to all sorts of trouble against > thin-skinned opponents. Alerting, then telling it is not as written on the > CC, is not a standard procedure. > > What do you suggest ? > > Thak 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 01:59:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DFwXj24433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:58:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DFwQt24427 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:58:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-68-7.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.68.7]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6DFtuP02643; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:55:56 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001201c10bb4$6692cc80$07447bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid><007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 16:55:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 13 July 2001 11:01 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > Grattan Endicott writes > > >> From: "Tim West-meads" > > >> LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION > >> A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws > >> has the following duties and powers: > >> E. Special Conditions > >> to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as > >written > >> bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions > >not > >> transmitted across a screen may be suspended). > >> F. Supplementary Regulations > >> to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in > >> conflict with, these Laws. > >> > >> It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has > >> contravened Law 80 in that it's published bidding box regualtions > >> are in contravention of Law 25A. > > >+=+ Once more the Geneva ruling applies. The condition in 80F > >applies to regulations made under 80F and not to regulations > >made under other sections of the Laws. In point of fact there > >is no conflict with the laws where a law authorizes a regulation > >to be made and places no restriction on its content. > > Before I make a fool of myself again, please can you confirm what I > understand the above to say. > > If I understand you correctly, a reg under L80E is allowed to conflict > with the laws. Thus the following reg is legal under L80E: > > Written bidding: Players make their calls by writing on the bidding pad, > with the calls going anti-clockwise around the table. > +=+ I am but the servant of the WBF. The decision of the Executive Council sitting jointly with the Rules & Regulations Committee was that the condition in Law 80F applies only to regulations made under Law 80F and not to regulations made under other sections of the Laws. I think the WBF has confidence in the regulators to make only regulations that do not injure the fundamentals of the game. There are, of course, numbers of regulations that rely on this dictum. The EBL, ACBL, and the WBF itself, have - or have had - such regulations in connection with screens, control of conventions and the psyching of conventions, the limitation of systemic agreements (minimum values, for example, didn't the EBU get into that sometime?) 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 Sat Jul 14 02:26:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DGPb625024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:25:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DGPVt25018 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-127.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.127]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B1216116072 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:23:07 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] MI? Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:18:31 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch (Fri 13 Jul 2001 01:35) writes: >>From: "Marvin L. French" >>Cue bids over an opening bid are not Alertable unless the cue bid has a >>highly unusual meaning. But 2C over artificial 1C is not a cue bid (I infer) >>according to the ACBL. >>Michaels must therefore be Alerted under the general requirement in >>the Alert Procedure that "ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE >>ALERTED." Exceptions to that policy are provided (Stayman, etc.) in the >>Alert Procedure, and bogus cue bids, Michaels or not, of an artificially bid >>suit are not one of the exceptions. > >My understanding, and perhaps a common misunderstanding, is that in the >ACBL, 1 monkey-2 monkies is never alertable unless both monkies are natural. >If the actual alert proceedure is different, I'd like to know. This hand was played in the Garden Cities Final in Coventry, UK. EBU Orange Book alerting regulations applied, so the 2C bid over 1C was alertable *unless* the bid showed natural clubs and said nothing about any other suit (EBU OB 5.2.1(a) & 5.3.1(a)). NS were our team-mates. At our table, I was East and bid 3C (Ghestem) over a natural 1C. NS then bid to 6C tick for 920 and +10 IMPs. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 03:35:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DHYTJ26473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 03:34:29 +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 f6DHYMt26467 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 03:34:23 +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 f6DHX7a13849 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003901c10bc1$aa5b7a40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] BLML@Toronto NABC Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:26:01 -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 Brian Baresch and I plan to meet for breakfast at the Toronto NABC. 10 am Sunday, July 22, in front of York's Kitchen, the Royal York Hotel's restaurant. We'd be delighted to have any BLMLer's join us, even TDs! If interested, let me know by private e-mail so I can arrange for the BLML table(s?) at that time. No laws/regs business, we can do that on BLML. Just a friendly get-together, so wives and girl friends are welcome too. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 14 04:07:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DI7HI27202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:07:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DI7Bt27196 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:07:11 +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 15L7Iy-000N7q-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:04:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:23:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@john> In-Reply-To: <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@john> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF writes >I fail to see where this is not covered under Law 16A. In the first case, >the >player noticed their own mistake and Law 25A permits the change. >In the second and third, the player notices the mistake ONLY when their >partner alerted or answered a question. Both of these acts by partner are UI >for >the player who made the mistake. Without commenting on whether I think John's interpretation is wrong or right, the third scenario was that the player realised because of the opponent's question not when his partner answered. > When that happens, the player can no longer >save themselves becuase it was their partner that brought it to their >attention, >or may have brought it to their attention. > >So, there you go, -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 04:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DICaL27338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:12:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DICTt27332 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:12:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id EB986D7CAD for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:10:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:10:08 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <99roktgeletrk478r8a2cfc3buaftfh2s7@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.6.32.20010713141431.0081f240@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010713141431.0081f240@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6DICWt27333 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:14:31 +0200, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 17:43 11/07/01 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >>(b) I believe that the most sensible interpretation (which I'd suggest >writing >>into the laws at some time) in general in these cases is that any information >>that a player has a right to acquire just by asking or looking at the table >>(e.g., the auction itself, the vulnerability, or the opponents' system) is >>always AI, even if he gets it from partner. > >AG : I'd like to offer a counterexample : the number of tricks already made >by both sides. Doesn't L74B4 imply that if partner insists, this is UI, and >that any line of play based on this info might be disallowed (which is the >usual treatment of UI) ? I think you mean L74C4 ("commenting ... so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks ..."), not L74B4. L74C4 tells us that calling attention to the number of tricks is a violation of procedure. That does not necessarily mean that the resulting information is UI. I would clearly prefer an interpretation where it is AI - not because letting it be UI in this particular case would be very problematic, but because the general principle of "freely available information is always AI" is desirable in other situations.. However, in this case I would have no problem adjusting afterwards based on L72B1 (and possibly giving a PP), so the end resultat will probably be the same regardless of whether it is AI or UI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 04:32:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DIWCX27780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:32:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DIW6t27773 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:32:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id DD0C9D7CAD for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:29:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:29:46 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200107122129.RAA19121@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107122129.RAA19121@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6DIW8t27776 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:29:17 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Gordon Bower >> I would love to see the words "for thought" stricken from the laws every >> place they occur immediately following the word "pause" in the next >> addition of the laws, along with axing 25B. > >Kaplan explained that "for thought" was added in order to take care of >someone who realized his mistake at once but couldn't get the >corrective words out in time. (Kaplan's example was something like >"Two spa... no wait, I mean, this is terrible, I meant, umm, really, >two hearts.") That is more or less what I do mentally; the difference is that meanwhile I sit still and keep quiet with a poker face. >I think this particular problem could be dealt with by requiring the >player to _initiate_ (not necessarily _complete_) his correction >without pause, and deleting the "for thought" as Gordon suggests. That would not help those of us whose natural instinct when we see that something strange has happened is to put on a poker face and think through what actually happened before acting. I suspect that the "pause for thought" part is really there in order to help judging whether it really was inadvertent. If it really was inadvertent, why should a pause for thought mean that you lose the chance for a correction? My suggestion is to remove the "pause for thought" clause completely. Of course, a pause may influence the TD's judgment of whether or not the call really was inadvertent, but that is a matter of judging evidence. >I am not sure, however, that the above deals with the real problem, >which in my opinion is the "inadvertent" part. That is an example of >mind reading, which we ought to eliminate. I disagree with that. We should try to eliminate problematic examples of "mind reading" rules, but this one is not problematic. Most players, including most of those who misbid once in a while, are honest, and will try to give an honest answer when you take them away from the table and ask how they came to make the call. When I explain that I need to know whether the problem was (a) that they tried to grab one card and got hold of another, or (b) something else, I very rarely get an answer that I suspect to be wrong. IMO, the "inadvertent" part of L25A almost always works just fine, and it would be a pity to remove a rule that works fine in practice just because it can theoretically be abused. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 04:34:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DIYYt27844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:34:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6DIYSt27838 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:34:29 +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 f6DIXDa25397 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005201c10bca$103e4420$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <005d01c10ba4$c7696600$2710ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] overcast tables Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:22:40 -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 Anne Jones wrote: > I suggest two sets of CCs. Why is this not allowed? > Your CC is supposed to tell opps what you "are" playing against them, > not what you "were" playing against other opps. > Perhaps that would be allowed "over there," but in ACBL-land a system can be changed during a session based only on vulnerability and/or bidding position. Pairs must stay within the bounds of HCP and other strength indicators, and use whatever conventions are shown to be in use, on the CC. That doesn't mean there isn't leeway to tighten up against certain pairs and loosen up against others. Pairs just can't agree to play things like 10 or 14 HCP 1NTs when the CC says 11-13 HCP. 11-12 against some, 12-13 against some, that's okay. It's also okay to stray a point or two outside a strength indicator or range, provided partner doesn't allow for it. If, however, partners explicitly communicate to each other whether tightening/loosening is in order against certain pairs, then I think that has to be disclosed. Agreeing to play outside a range shown on the CC is definitely illegal, disclosed or not. Another principle is that pairs can't vary system in accordance with anticipated countermeasures. The usual example is that pairs can't play penalty doubles vs weak overcallers and negative doubles vs sound overcallers. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 14 04:35:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DIZdR28185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:35:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DIZWt28151 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:35:33 +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 OAA21953 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA27271 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:33:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:33:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107131833.OAA27271@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] overcast tables X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > But one thing bothers me : at 'overcast tables', our CC was not correctly > filled ! It mentioned wild preempts and atrocious overcalls, and we didn't > use them ! As you say, this is a clear violation. > Obviously, we are not allowed to have two sets of CCs. Why not? Some SO's prohibit changing systems during a system -- the ACBL does, but fortunately its jurisdiction does not extend to Belgium. I don't know whether a drastic change of preemptive style counts as a system change, but I think it probably should. Thus in the ACBL, I believe your whole "overcast table" concept would be illegal. But if changing methods in this way is legal, either because the SO doesn't consider it a system change or because system changes are allowed, then I don't see why having multiple convention cards is a problem. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 04:48:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DImTt00704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:48:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DImLt00698 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 04:48:22 +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 OAA22452 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:46:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA27287 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:46:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107131846.OAA27287@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk SW>... the real problem, SW>which in my opinion is the "inadvertent" part. That is an example of SW>mind reading, which we ought to eliminate. > From: Jesper Dybdal > I disagree with that. We should try to eliminate problematic examples of > "mind reading" rules, but this one is not problematic. ... > IMO, the "inadvertent" part of L25A almost always works just fine, I am sorry to see we disagree. That very probably means I am wrong, but let's try a little further. Suppose a player grabs the 2S bid card, lifts it 50 mm or so beyond the box, says "Oops," puts it back in, takes out the 2NT bid card, and puts it on the table. (It is the player's turn to call, and either bid is sufficient, so no extraneous problems!) Suppose further that the rules say the call was "made" when the bid card cleared the box. (I believe this is now the most common rule.) Now in practice, the TD will never be called in the above scenario. "Everyone" will assume it was just a mechanical slip, the 2S bid was made, but it was corrected under L25A. But suppose you are called, and the player tells you the following: at the moment he began to reach for the bid box, he meant to bid 2S. At the moment he said "oops," he meant to bid 2NT. He changed his mind somewhere around the time the bid card was clearing the box, but he is unable to say whether it was just before or just after the bid was "made." Do you think this is an easy ruling? Other people have given examples where a player may (or may not) have been reminded of a mistake. What do you see as the benefit of retaining "inadvertent?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 05:25:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DJOrG02790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 05:24:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DJObt02774 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 05:24:38 +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 f6DJNKa03617 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009301c10bd1$10b8c720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107122115.RAA19030@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:16:27 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" \ > > I have seen A+/A- given where the logic > has been that the TD or AC cannot decide what would have happened. Ok, > everyone knows what I think of A+/A- in such a situation, but it is the > reason behind it that worries me. > It's too bad that the words used in the definition of an artificial adjusted score in the Definitions section aren't repeated in L12C1. "An artificial score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained *or estimated* for a particular deal..." (emphasis mine) I suggest that "or estimated" be included in L12C1 next time. Then maybe TDs/ACs won't think in terms of "what would have happened" but rather in terms of "what might have happened." Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 14 08:18:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DMH7i20570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:17:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DMGwt20558 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:16:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6DMDA820657 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 18:10:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson asks: >Now that *is* interesting. ACBL alerting is usually efficient rather >than memorable, but you are saying that over a Strong Club, where it is >completely standard for 2C to show clubs, that an artificial 2C does not >require an alert? Well, if you go by what the CC shows, there are four lines under "DIRECT CUEBID". The first three are labelled "natural", "strong T/O", and "Michaels". There are three columns of check boxes labelled "minor", "major" and "artificial". The checkboxes on the first line ("natural") for the first two columns are red. All the other checkboxes are black. The fourth line in this section is simply a blank black line. Several people, including, if I'm not mistaken, ACBL Chief TD Gary Blaiss, have said that if a box (or line, I presume) is red on the CC, any call listed by checking that box or writing on that line is alertable, and if it's black, the call is *not* alertable. On that basis, I'd have to say: Natural cuebids of natural suit opening are alertable. *No* other direct cuebid is alertable. Whether this conforms to what the ACBL Alert Regulation actually says is another question. I would say it doesn't. But then, who cares what I think? :-) Going by the wording of the regulation, btw, I'd say that whether an artificial meaning of a 2C overcall of a strong 1C is alertable depends on whether that meaning is "very unusual or unexpected". And that, it would seem, will vary from time to time, place to place, player to player, and perhaps from td to td as well. 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/AwUBO09yzb2UW3au93vOEQLfbwCgkvwPYPMTcok77XITj9reHEky4vAAmweU ib11m3RvFdVlkyEvKW9mAKxh =JSeU -----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 Jul 14 08:59:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DMxOg22484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:59:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6DMxGt22475 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:59:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-121-94-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.94]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6DMulg04178; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:56:47 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <3B4F7CA7.D75C5D32@ptialaska.net> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:56:40 -0800 From: Michael Schmahl Organization: poor X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@john> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" wrote: > > | John wrote: > | > [2] NO > | > [3] NO > | > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director > | Ton wrote: > | > | could you tell us why your answers for 2 and 3 are 'no' and on which law > you > | base this? > | > | if 'pause for thought' is a consideration why this distinction between 1 > and > | the other 2? > I fail to see where this is not covered under Law 16A. In the first case, "Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." Is noticing that you made an unintended call a "call" or a "play"? What about changing your call, once the mistake is noticed? I could see this argued to be a "call", but in this case whether your were allowed to corect it would depend on whether NOT correcting the call were a LA, wouldn't it? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 09:56:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6DNu4425192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:56:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpe.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpe.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6DNttt25182 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:55:56 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13846 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2001 23:53:35 -0000 Received: from mail1.ha-net.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) ([207.44.96.65]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpe.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Jul 2001 23:53:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 11549 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2001 23:53:34 -0000 Received: from dell600.msns.man.ptd.net ([24.229.82.59]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 13 Jul 2001 23:53:34 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:53:30 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: 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 This is a question which surfaced on the OKBridge discussion list. I think it's sufficiently unusual to post it here (with the original author's permission). You are called to a table where South is dealer, and both South and West have passed. At that point, it is discovered that the wrong E-W pair are sitting at the table. As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be cancelled. South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with a vulnerable bid of 7NT! If you consider it relevant, West's holding turns out to be S xxx H AKxxx D Qxx C xx The auctions are different, so you have to cancel the board. What scores would you assign to N-S and E-W? In addition, if you think it makes any difference, what action would you take if West had opened a) 1H b) 2H (nat weak 2) c) 3H (nat. pre-empt). I don't believe it makes any difference, but if it does, the board is being played in ACBL-land. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 10:45:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6E0jIY27696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:45:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6E0jBt27687 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:45:11 +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 f6E0hta27798 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:43:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c901c10bfd$da131680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:41:05 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > > David Stevenson asks: > > >Now that *is* interesting. ACBL alerting is usually efficient rather > >than memorable, but you are saying that over a Strong Club, where it is > >completely standard for 2C to show clubs, that an artificial 2C does not > >require an alert? > > Well, if you go by what the CC shows, there are four lines under > "DIRECT CUEBID". The first three are labelled "natural", "strong > T/O", and "Michaels". There are three columns of check boxes labelled > "minor", "major" and "artificial". The checkboxes on the first line > ("natural") for the first two columns are red. All the other > checkboxes are black. The fourth line in this section is simply a > blank black line. Several people, including, if I'm not mistaken, > ACBL Chief TD Gary Blaiss, have said that if a box (or line, I > presume) is red on the CC, any call listed by checking that box or > writing on that line is alertable, and if it's black, the call is > *not* alertable. On that basis, I'd have to say: > > Natural cuebids of natural suit opening are alertable. *No* other > direct cuebid is alertable. > > Whether this conforms to what the ACBL Alert Regulation actually says > is another question. I would say it doesn't. But then, who cares what > I think? :-) > > Going by the wording of the regulation, btw, I'd say that whether an > artificial meaning of a 2C overcall of a strong 1C is alertable > depends on whether that meaning is "very unusual or unexpected". And > that, it would seem, will vary from time to time, place to place, > player to player, and perhaps from td to td as well. > I agree with Ed in a way, although I still wonder whether 2C over artificial 1C is really a "Direct Cue Bid," which is the heading for the CC area we're talking about. If it isn't, then the boxes under "artificial" would never be checked. That's a bit subtle, so the *de facto* rule we probably have to live with is the one given by Ed. This reminds me of the time when a convention was added to the CC by some unknown kowtowing person during a period when there was a moratorium on new conventions. That was a red check box for Alerting the sort of 1D opening that Precision uses, which may be shorter than three cards. Edgar Kaplan, who told me the CC box gave *de facto* approval to the convention, no use fighting it, published my article "Defense Against the One Diamond Convention," but deleted one of my sentences, as I knew he would: "You and I would not stand a Chinaman's chance of having one of *our* favorite conventions adopted during the moratorium." Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 14 11:14:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6E1Dab04136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:13:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6E1DTt04127 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 11:13:30 +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 15LDxM-000P5S-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:11:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:32:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] overcast tables References: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@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 >Of course, it is allowed to adopt different strategies against different >people, it is even highly recommendable, and you can't avoid to have >more-or-less explicit agreements about it (like, some players should be >doubled more readily than others). >But one thing bothers me : at 'overcast tables', our CC was not correctly >filled ! It mentioned wild preempts and atrocious overcalls, and we didn't >use them ! > >I've thought for a while about it, but couldn't come up with a satisfying >answer as to what should have been done. Obviously, we are not allowed to >have two sets of CCs. Obviously? Why not? You seem to be playing two different systems, and two pairs of CCs seems the obvious answer, if legal with your SO. > Putting on our CC 'possible wild preempts, according >to whom we're playing against' may lead to all sorts of trouble against >thin-skinned opponents. Not doing so is illegal. I think you should worry more about Full Disclosure. > Alerting, then telling it is not as written on the >CC, is not a standard procedure. Better than doing nothing. -- 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 Jul 14 15:06:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6E562Z29641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:06:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6E55rt29629 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:05:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6E54ba28811 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ec01c10c22$45ef0c00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 21:54:10 -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: "Brian Meadows" > > This is a question which surfaced on the OKBridge discussion > list. I think it's sufficiently unusual to post it here (with the > original author's permission). > > You are called to a table where South is dealer, and both South > and West have passed. At that point, it is discovered that the > wrong E-W pair are sitting at the table. > > As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs > that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be > cancelled. I would not tell that to E-W, only to N-S, but I would ask E-W to just bid normally because there is a problem. > South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with > a vulnerable bid of 7NT! And that's why. > > If you consider it relevant, West's holding turns out to be > S xxx H AKxxx D Qxx C xx > > The auctions are different, so you have to cancel the board. What > scores would you assign to N-S and E-W? > > In addition, if you think it makes any difference, what action > would you take if West had opened a) 1H b) 2H (nat weak 2) > c) 3H (nat. pre-empt). > > I don't believe it makes any difference, but if it does, the > board is being played in ACBL-land. > > If, after investigation, I find that West has bid in accordance with his usual system, e.g., he opens 2H and this is a normal 2H opening for him, then the board is cancelled and I award appropriate artificial scores in accordance with L12C1. If West has not bid per system, then I rule that he gets avg- per L12C1 plus a PP per L90B7 for being a wise guy and causing an adjusted score. For N-S, either avg (partially at fault) or avg+ (in no way at fault), depending on circumstances. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 14 20:18:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EAHJE21245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:17:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f6EAHAt21235 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:17:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-191.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.191]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6EAEdn17661 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:14:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B501B56.A71209EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 12:13:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > This is a question which surfaced on the OKBridge discussion > list. I think it's sufficiently unusual to post it here (with the > original author's permission). > > You are called to a table where South is dealer, and both South > and West have passed. At that point, it is discovered that the > wrong E-W pair are sitting at the table. > > As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs > that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be > cancelled. You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to accept to play and he can force this. One problem remains though. West should not be told that the previous west has already bid. His tactic might backfire, if the previous West had not yet bid. > South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with > a vulnerable bid of 7NT! > > If you consider it relevant, West's holding turns out to be > S xxx H AKxxx D Qxx C xx > > The auctions are different, so you have to cancel the board. What > scores would you assign to N-S and E-W? > > In addition, if you think it makes any difference, what action > would you take if West had opened a) 1H b) 2H (nat weak 2) > c) 3H (nat. pre-empt). > all the same, since 7NT is allowed, so are all the more normal bids. > I don't believe it makes any difference, but if it does, the > board is being played in ACBL-land. > > Brian. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 14 20:58:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EAwBa22755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:58:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6EAvxt22738 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:57:59 +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 15LN59-0000zK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:55:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:35:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <200107122115.RAA19030@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009301c10bd1$10b8c720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009301c10bd1$10b8c720$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" \ >> >> I have seen A+/A- given where the logic >> has been that the TD or AC cannot decide what would have happened. Ok, >> everyone knows what I think of A+/A- in such a situation, but it is the >> reason behind it that worries me. >> >It's too bad that the words used in the definition of an artificial adjusted >score in the Definitions section aren't repeated in L12C1. > >"An artificial score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result >can be obtained *or estimated* for a particular deal..." (emphasis mine) I really think you would make it worse, not better. At the moment these TDs are using L12C1 despite the fact that a result *has been* obtained. >I suggest that "or estimated" be included in L12C1 next time. Then maybe >TDs/ACs won't think in terms of "what would have happened" but rather in >terms of "what might have happened." It is a question of what *did* happen. Was a result obtained? Fine, move on to L12C2. -- 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 Jul 14 20:58:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EAwFT22759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:58:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6EAvwt22736 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:57:59 +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 15LN59-0000zJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:55:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:32:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> 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 >David Stevenson asks: > >>Now that *is* interesting. ACBL alerting is usually efficient rather >>than memorable, but you are saying that over a Strong Club, where it is >>completely standard for 2C to show clubs, that an artificial 2C does not >>require an alert? > >Well, if you go by what the CC shows, there are four lines under >"DIRECT CUEBID". The first three are labelled "natural", "strong >T/O", and "Michaels". There are three columns of check boxes labelled >"minor", "major" and "artificial". The checkboxes on the first line >("natural") for the first two columns are red. All the other >checkboxes are black. The fourth line in this section is simply a >blank black line. Several people, including, if I'm not mistaken, >ACBL Chief TD Gary Blaiss, have said that if a box (or line, I >presume) is red on the CC, any call listed by checking that box or >writing on that line is alertable, and if it's black, the call is >*not* alertable. On that basis, I'd have to say: > >Natural cuebids of natural suit opening are alertable. *No* other >direct cuebid is alertable. That's fine, and easy enough to understand, and reasonable. But it has no relevance to a Precision Club. I bet that players who have a defence to Precision Club at all do not put it in that part of the CC. >Whether this conforms to what the ACBL Alert Regulation actually says >is another question. I would say it doesn't. But then, who cares what >I think? :-) > >Going by the wording of the regulation, btw, I'd say that whether an >artificial meaning of a 2C overcall of a strong 1C is alertable >depends on whether that meaning is "very unusual or unexpected". And >that, it would seem, will vary from time to time, place to place, >player to player, and perhaps from td to td as well. -- 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 Jul 14 20:58:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EAwE922758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:58:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6EAw2t22748 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:58:03 +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 15LN59-000Fy4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:55:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 02:30:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <200107131846.OAA27287@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107131846.OAA27287@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >SW>... the real problem, >SW>which in my opinion is the "inadvertent" part. That is an example of >SW>mind reading, which we ought to eliminate. > >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> I disagree with that. We should try to eliminate problematic examples of >> "mind reading" rules, but this one is not problematic. >... >> IMO, the "inadvertent" part of L25A almost always works just fine, > >I am sorry to see we disagree. That very probably means I am wrong, >but let's try a little further. > >Suppose a player grabs the 2S bid card, lifts it 50 mm or so beyond the >box, says "Oops," puts it back in, takes out the 2NT bid card, and puts >it on the table. (It is the player's turn to call, and either bid is >sufficient, so no extraneous problems!) Suppose further that the rules >say the call was "made" when the bid card cleared the box. (I believe >this is now the most common rule.) > >Now in practice, the TD will never be called in the above scenario. >"Everyone" will assume it was just a mechanical slip, the 2S bid was >made, but it was corrected under L25A. But suppose you are called, and >the player tells you the following: at the moment he began to reach for >the bid box, he meant to bid 2S. At the moment he said "oops," he >meant to bid 2NT. He changed his mind somewhere around the time the >bid card was clearing the box, but he is unable to say whether it was >just before or just after the bid was "made." > >Do you think this is an easy ruling? Probably. I do not really understand the example, but it sounds as though it would be simple enough at the time. >Other people have given examples where a player may (or may not) have >been reminded of a mistake. > >What do you see as the benefit of retaining "inadvertent?" Let us try a bit of mathematics. When I play at Blundellsands BC at my table L25A is invoked at my table on average about twenty times a night. Of course, the TD is not called, but we are trying to find out what he Law should be. So, presumably, with two duplicates a month, L25A is used at Blundellsands BC about 1000 times a month. How many of these "rulings" create any difficulty? Well, the TD is called for a L25A case about once in 10,000 times, ie about once a year, and he generally finds no problems. Now let us try for England. Assume we have 500 clubs and Blundellsands is average. L25A is used about five million times a year in England. Of course, not all clubs have really got the hang of bidding boxes, and some are more acrimonious, so that probably is about 5000 TD calls, and of those there is probably a problem for the TD in a 1000 a year. So, we have a Law that is invoked far more often than revokes and calls out of turn put together. It works without the slightest problem in 4999 cases out of 5000 - in fact without the Director being present in about 4995 cases out of 5000. Why does it work so well? Because it is instinctively correct. Unlike so many Laws, it works the way people expect. They do not expect to change their mind, but they do expect to change a misspull. The main benefit of retaining "inadvertent" is that it makes the Law popular, correct in most people's mind and easy to apply,. -- 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 Jul 15 00:59:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EEwIm15602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:58:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EEw8t15590 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:58:09 +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 KAA15232 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA20093; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107141455.KAA20093@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >From: "Brian Meadows" > >> >> This is a question which surfaced on the OKBridge discussion >> list. I think it's sufficiently unusual to post it here (with the >> original author's permission). >> >> You are called to a table where South is dealer, and both South >> and West have passed. At that point, it is discovered that the >> wrong E-W pair are sitting at the table. >> >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs >> that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be >> cancelled. > >I would not tell that to E-W, only to N-S, but I would ask E-W to just bid >normally because there is a problem. > >> South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with >> a vulnerable bid of 7NT! > >And that's why. > >> >> If you consider it relevant, West's holding turns out to be >> S xxx H AKxxx D Qxx C xx >> >> The auctions are different, so you have to cancel the board. What >> scores would you assign to N-S and E-W? >> >> In addition, if you think it makes any difference, what action >> would you take if West had opened a) 1H b) 2H (nat weak 2) >> c) 3H (nat. pre-empt). >> >> I don't believe it makes any difference, but if it does, the >> board is being played in ACBL-land. >> >> >If, after investigation, I find that West has bid in accordance with his >usual system, e.g., he opens 2H and this is a normal 2H opening for him, >then the board is cancelled and I award appropriate artificial scores in >accordance with L12C1. > >If West has not bid per system, then I rule that he gets avg- per L12C1 plus >a PP per L90B7 for being a wise guy and causing an adjusted score. For N-S, >either avg (partially at fault) or avg+ (in no way at fault), depending on >circumstances. > I don't see the justification for West getting an A-. Where in L15(c) does it say West can't be a "wise guy"? Please note that the section "players must repeat calls they made previously" applies to the OP, not the NOP. If anything, I think the director should make clear to the NOP that a change will result in A+ for them, A- for the OP, and leave the decision to them as to whether they want to play the board or take an A+. Most people come to play bridge, not to play A+, but chacun a son gout. 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 Sun Jul 15 02:17:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EGGUQ20493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:16:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EGGNt20487 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:16:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-179.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.179]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7883736BF1; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:14:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:23:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Brian Meadows wrote: >> You are called to a table where South is dealer, and both South >> and West have passed. At that point, it is discovered that the >> wrong E-W pair are sitting at the table. >> >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs >> that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be >> cancelled. > >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to >accept to play and he can force this. Where in the laws do you find that option for West? I join Marvin: if West makes a call with the purpose to make this board unplayable and succeeds, he should be penalized: average-minus or even less. And I think that it isn't even necessary to explain this before. Of course nothing should be told about the previous auction. ton ton One problem remains >though. West should not be told that the previous west has >already bid. His tactic might backfire, if the previous >West had not yet bid. > >> South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with >> a vulnerable bid of 7NT! >> >> If you consider it relevant, West's holding turns out to be >> S xxx H AKxxx D Qxx C xx >> >> The auctions are different, so you have to cancel the board. What >> scores would you assign to N-S and E-W? >> >> In addition, if you think it makes any difference, what action >> would you take if West had opened a) 1H b) 2H (nat weak 2) >> c) 3H (nat. pre-empt). >> > >all the same, since 7NT is allowed, so are all the more >normal bids. > >> I don't believe it makes any difference, but if it does, the >> board is being played in ACBL-land. >> >> Brian. >> > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 15 02:18:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EGIcv20651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:18:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6EGITt20641 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:18:31 +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 15LS5L-000Nek-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:16:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:13:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00ec01c10c22$45ef0c00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00ec01c10c22$45ef0c00$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: "Brian Meadows" > >> >> This is a question which surfaced on the OKBridge discussion >> list. I think it's sufficiently unusual to post it here (with the >> original author's permission). >> >> You are called to a table where South is dealer, and both South >> and West have passed. At that point, it is discovered that the >> wrong E-W pair are sitting at the table. >> >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs >> that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be >> cancelled. > >I would not tell that to E-W, only to N-S, but I would ask E-W to just bid >normally because there is a problem. That is not acceptable. TDs do not keep rulings secret from players. L9B2 would not permit play to continue. >> South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with >> a vulnerable bid of 7NT! > >And that's why. If that is not permissible - and you need to explain why because it is not obvious - then the TD should have warned the pair. >> If you consider it relevant, West's holding turns out to be >> S xxx H AKxxx D Qxx C xx >> >> The auctions are different, so you have to cancel the board. What >> scores would you assign to N-S and E-W? >> >> In addition, if you think it makes any difference, what action >> would you take if West had opened a) 1H b) 2H (nat weak 2) >> c) 3H (nat. pre-empt). >> >> I don't believe it makes any difference, but if it does, the >> board is being played in ACBL-land. >If, after investigation, I find that West has bid in accordance with his >usual system, e.g., he opens 2H and this is a normal 2H opening for him, >then the board is cancelled and I award appropriate artificial scores in >accordance with L12C1. > >If West has not bid per system, then I rule that he gets avg- per L12C1 plus >a PP per L90B7 for being a wise guy and causing an adjusted score. For N-S, >either avg (partially at fault) or avg+ (in no way at fault), depending on >circumstances. L90B7 does not apply because the error in procedure was by a different pair. Opening 2H is not an error in 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 Sun Jul 15 02:25:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EGP6G21065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:25:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from emerald.oz.net (emerald2.oz.net [216.39.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EGP0t21059 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:25:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mamula (sense-mamula-64.oz.net [216.39.151.64]) by emerald.oz.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA24541; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200107141605.JAA24541@emerald.oz.net> From: "Donald Mamula" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 09:21:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Re:[BLML] CC design [was: Not Alerting Doubles] Reply-to: mamula@oz.net CC: mlfrench@writeme.com In-reply-to: <010401c108f7$32f44c60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 9 Jul 01, at 21:14, Marvin L. French wrote: > There is now plenty of room on the table for four CCs, four bidding > boxes, boards, score slips, and pens/pencils. An additional suggestion to keep the table clutter-free..... ACBL pickup slips, when rotated 90 degrees, fit perfectly in a bidding box behind the alert and stop cards. Keeps them out of the way, AND away from the eyes of any "prowling" players who happen to wander past your table. (And don't tell me there aren't players who cop the first board of a round by looking at a score slip while ambling by) Don -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 15 03:05:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EH4q322444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 03:04:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EH4jt22439 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 03:04:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B847D7CAF for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:02:23 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 19:02:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200107131846.OAA27287@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107131846.OAA27287@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6EH4mt22441 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 14:46:00 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >Suppose a player grabs the 2S bid card, lifts it 50 mm or so beyond the >box, says "Oops," puts it back in, takes out the 2NT bid card, and puts >it on the table. (It is the player's turn to call, and either bid is >sufficient, so no extraneous problems!) Suppose further that the rules >say the call was "made" when the bid card cleared the box. (I believe >this is now the most common rule.) > >Now in practice, the TD will never be called in the above scenario. >"Everyone" will assume it was just a mechanical slip, the 2S bid was >made, but it was corrected under L25A. Yes. I could be a problem that the TD is never called even when it actually was a change of mind. But that is difficult to handle in any reasonable way, since we definitely want people to be able to correct mechanical slips in that way. >But suppose you are called, and >the player tells you the following: at the moment he began to reach for >the bid box, he meant to bid 2S. At the moment he said "oops," he >meant to bid 2NT. He changed his mind somewhere around the time the >bid card was clearing the box, but he is unable to say whether it was >just before or just after the bid was "made." > >Do you think this is an easy ruling? Actually, yes: the reason that he bid 2S was that he had deliberately taken hold of the 2S card; there was no mechanical slip. If he changed his mind later, why did he continue lifting the cards out of the box? L25B. However, I think your point will be made better if he could not say whether he changed his mind before or after catching hold of the bidding card. But I think this happens extremely rarely: it would require a combination of his changing his mind from 2S to 2NT (which happens once in a while) and at the same time not be careful enough to know which of the two he was actually bidding (which I think happens just about never). If it really happened, I would probably still rule that the 2S bid was somehow the result of his initial desire to bid 2S and not the result of a mechanical slip. If you are changing your mind between 2S and 2NT and then bid one of them, it is probably not a mechanical slip. >What do you see as the benefit of retaining "inadvertent?" I haven't really given any serious thought to possible alternatives. The primary benefit of "inadvertent" is that it seems - to me - to work very well in practice. It may well be possible to find other rules that would work just as well, but it seems, at least around here, that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies to the "inadvertent" part of L25A. I think we clearly need it to be allowed to change a call under some circumstances - first of all because you can't really see what you're bidding until you actually have bid it. Alternatively, we need different regulations about when a bid is made. If we did not already have the "inadvertent" rule, I think that I might be just as happy with a rule like "A call is made when the calling card is on the table and the player is no longer holding it, and cannot then be changed". All changes made before that point in then just UI. But I see no reason at all to change something that works well in almost every case. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 06:40:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EKeIg14931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:40:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EKe9t14882 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:40:10 +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 QAA25090 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA10064 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:37:46 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:37:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107142037.QAA10064@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >the player tells you the following: at the moment he began to reach for > >the bid box, he meant to bid 2S. At the moment he said "oops," he > >meant to bid 2NT. He changed his mind somewhere around the time the > >bid card was clearing the box, but he is unable to say whether it was > >just before or just after the bid was "made." > From: Jesper Dybdal > Actually, yes: the reason that he bid 2S was that he had deliberately taken > hold of the 2S card; there was no mechanical slip. If he changed his mind > later, why did he continue lifting the cards out of the box? L25B. At the time he grasped the 2S card (and in fact until the card cleared the box), changing the bid because of a change of mind was legal. The difficult point is whether the change of mind came before or after the bid was "made." If the player cannot say, how can the TD? David S. says the ruling is easy, but he doesn't tell us what it is. > However, I think your point will be made better if he could not say whether he > changed his mind before or after catching hold of the bidding card. Under the rules I postulated (and in effect nearly everywhere), "taking hold" has nothing to do with the ruling. The critical moment is when the bidding card clears the box, not when it is grasped. > think this happens extremely rarely: it would require a combination of his > changing his mind from 2S to 2NT (which happens once in a while) and at the > same time not be careful enough to know which of the two he was actually > bidding (which I think happens just about never). No, he knew exactly which one he was bidding. It is a clear change of mind, but was it in time or not? The problem comes because of a combination of requiring mind reading and because the moment a call is "made" is not visually obvious. > >What do you see as the benefit of retaining "inadvertent?" > > I haven't really given any serious thought to possible alternatives. The > primary benefit of "inadvertent" is that it seems - to me - to work very well > in practice. Perhaps this is the key point. If everyone else is happy with it, I'll go along. But I am not so sure it is working well. I see all too many changes that I believe to be changes of mind yet still allowed. Also, it encourages people to be careless with the bidding cards (as David demonstrates with his statistics from Blundellsands). I think it would be much better to define some moment before which a change (for any reason) is allowed and after which no change is allowed. > I think we clearly need it to be allowed to change a call under some > circumstances - first of all because you can't really see what you're bidding > until you actually have bid it. Alternatively, we need different regulations > about when a bid is made. Yes, clearly the moment after which no change is allowed has to be late enough to allow ample opportunity to correct mechanical errors. Another requirement, perhaps less obvious, is that the occurrence of the critical moment should be obvious to all at the table. > If we did not already have the "inadvertent" rule, I think that I might be > just as happy with a rule like "A call is made when the calling card is on the > table and the player is no longer holding it, and cannot then be changed". Releasing the bidding cards is a good candidate for defining when a call is made. Mechanical mistakes should nearly always be caught by then, yet a change of mind (if done quickly) transmits little UI because it looks like a mechanical mistake. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 06:44:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EKi0516232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:44:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EKhrt16185 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:43:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-55-229.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.55.229]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6EKenP18376; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 21:40:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <006701c10ca5$76fe50c0$e5377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 21:41:21 +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: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform > >> the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the > >> board will be cancelled. > > > >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid > >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to > >accept to play and he can force this. > > Where in the laws do you find that option for West? I join > Marvin: if West makes a call with the purpose to make > this board unplayable and succeeds, he should be > penalized: average-minus or even less. And I think that it > isn't even necessary to explain this before. Of course > nothing should be told about the previous auction. > +=+ My heart is with you but my head still has its nose in the law book. It is reminding me that the correct contestants must be informed of their rights, so West will know that he has his normal right to make any call. It is saying: "But look here, it says that the Director must cancel the board if any call differs from that in the first auction; and it does not say there is any illegality in a choice of wild or gambling action by West. And if West has acted within the Law we have no grounds on which to treat him as anything but an innocent party." If we argue that a player who misbids is not subject to sanction for doing so, when the Law allows it, we must equally accept that this West player cannot be penalized for having broken no Law. The law does not give any power, that I can see, to pass judgement on the player's choice of call or his reasons for choosing it. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. ~ 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 Jul 15 07:05:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EL5eH24035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:05:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.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 f6EL5Wt23999 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:05:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6EL1m528539; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:01:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00ec01c10c22$45ef0c00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <00ec01c10c22$45ef0c00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:59:21 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:54 PM -0700 7/13/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >I would not tell that to E-W, only to N-S, but I would ask E-W to just bid >normally because there is a problem. > > > South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with > > a vulnerable bid of 7NT! > >And that's why. Good idea. [snip] >If West has not bid per system, then I rule that he gets avg- per L12C1 plus >a PP per L90B7 for being a wise guy and causing an adjusted score. For N-S, >either avg (partially at fault) or avg+ (in no way at fault), depending on >circumstances. Hm. I knew there was a way to get a PP in there somewhere. :-) Though you might want to throw 90B8 (failure to comply with director's instructions) in for good measure. I don't think you can give NS avg+, because they failed to ensure that the original EW were the correct pair before starting the round, so they're at best partly at fault. I can't find a law requiring them to do that, though. At least, not specifically. 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/AwUBO1Czj72UW3au93vOEQKC+QCfect0VgQjPsQiyNajjrt/pqz/yuEAoKfF IywQaXiEHwv+ckKSDSW0UkKY =0vp/ -----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 Jul 15 07:15:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ELFKO26523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:15:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.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 f6ELFEt26518 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:15:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6ELBZ500835 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3B501B56.A71209EA@village.uunet.be> References: <3B501B56.A71209EA@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:05:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:13 PM +0200 7/14/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid >the same, West is not (L15C). Agreed. > West is not required to accept to play and he can force this. Huh? Which law is this? >One problem remains though. West should not be told that the >previous west has >already bid. His tactic might backfire, if the previous West had not yet bid. Agree. I think. :-) West should not be told anything that suggests that doing something unusual could be beneficial to his side. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO1C1172UW3au93vOEQL0GACcCji9U2d34W6x0F58RToQKJbokzcAoMVc SwiGfchOHF+rrvtK7AgVxajK =BJWc -----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 Jul 15 07:15:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ELFU726531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:15:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ELFNt26526 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:15:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6ELBc500846 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 17:08:51 -0400 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:23 PM +0200 7/14/01, ton kooijman wrote: >Where in the laws do you find that option for West? I join Marvin: if West >makes a call with the purpose to make this board unplayable and succeeds, he >should be penalized: average-minus or even less. And I think that it isn't >even necessary to explain this before. Of course nothing should be told >about the previous auction. There are times, and this is one of them, when Herman strikes me as a very literal person. :-) In this case, I think he means that Law 15C allows for the possibility that *this* West might bid differently to the previous one - and Law 15C doesn't prohibit him from doing so, it simply says the score will be adjusted if he does. I suspect (I hope) that he would agree with you (and Marvin, and me :) that if West does as you say, he should be penalized. 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/AwUBO1C1272UW3au93vOEQJrfgCbBllKhWl8if1uYRRZVrcTUeLi0hcAoITB uwPYAnR31Mb96wio4epSnLhL =jqF0 -----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 Jul 15 07:21:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ELKro26630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:20:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ELKlt26624 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:20:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 60BFDD7CAF for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:18:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:18:24 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200107142037.QAA10064@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107142037.QAA10064@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6ELKnt26626 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 16:37:46 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> >the player tells you the following: at the moment he began to reach for >> >the bid box, he meant to bid 2S. At the moment he said "oops," he >> >meant to bid 2NT. He changed his mind somewhere around the time the >> >bid card was clearing the box, but he is unable to say whether it was >> >just before or just after the bid was "made." > >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> Actually, yes: the reason that he bid 2S was that he had deliberately taken >> hold of the 2S card; there was no mechanical slip. If he changed his mind >> later, why did he continue lifting the cards out of the box? L25B. > >At the time he grasped the 2S card (and in fact until the card cleared >the box), changing the bid because of a change of mind was legal. The >difficult point is whether the change of mind came before or after the >bid was "made." If the player cannot say, how can the TD? No, I think you've got this backwards. He did actually make the bid of 2S. The only point to consider then is whether the reason for his doing so was a mechanical slip or not. If there was no mechanical slip, then he has actually deliberately bid 2S (which would be a very strange thing to do if he changed his mind before it cleared the box). >Under the rules I postulated (and in effect nearly everywhere), "taking >hold" has nothing to do with the ruling. The critical moment is when >the bidding card clears the box, not when it is grasped. No. That moment is the moment the bid is made, and it is critical for a determination of whether or not the bid was made; but that determination is irrelevant here, since we know that he did not change the bid before lifting the clear of the box. The bid was definitely made, as 2S, so that moment is not interesting for the ruling. We know that he did not change the bid before it cleared the box. What is interesting is whether there was a mechanical slip or not. The time the actual mechanical slip occurred has no interesting legal relation to the "clearing the box" moment. If he changed his mind before grabbing the card, then he grabbed a card (2S) that was not the intended call: a mechanical slip. If he changed his mind just after grabbing the 2S card, then for some strange reason he has deliberately continued to bid 2S even though he could possibly still have changed it; but be certainly can't change the bid once it is lifted out of the box. Therefore, the moment of grabbing the card is the relevant one to decide whether 2S was a mechanical slip or not. >> think this happens extremely rarely: it would require a combination of his >> changing his mind from 2S to 2NT (which happens once in a while) and at the >> same time not be careful enough to know which of the two he was actually >> bidding (which I think happens just about never). > >No, he knew exactly which one he was bidding. If he changed his mind before 2S had cleared the box, and he knew he was holding a bid he did not want to make, then why did he take it completely out of the box? But if he knew exactly which one he was bidding, then there was obviously no mechanical slip, and L25A does not apply. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 07:35:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ELZlE26873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:35:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk (mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk [194.201.52.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ELZft26867 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 07:35:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from ch8as14-78-169-205.cw-visp.com ([212.137.169.205] helo=netscapeonline.co.uk) by mailhost.netscapeonline.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 15LWv8-00030m-00; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 21:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: <3B50B966.19923B3E@netscapeonline.co.uk> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:28:06 +0100 From: rhoxolan Organization: Netscape Online member X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb]C-CCK-MCD NetscapeOnline.co.uk (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <200107141455.KAA20093@freenet10.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is this EW pair someone imported from Greenland, or are they well aware of what is happening? "A. L. Edwards" wrote: > > > > > >From: "Brian Meadows" > > > >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs > >> that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be > >> cancelled. > > > >I would not tell that to E-W, only to N-S, but I would ask E-W to just bid > >normally because there is a problem. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 08:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EM9HC27411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:09:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f16.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EM9Ct27406 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:09:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:06:46 -0700 Received: from 172.173.109.148 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:06:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.173.109.148] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:06:45 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2001 22:06:46.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[45C90070:01C10CB1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is ACBL-specific, but there are possible disciplinary measures for "unsportsmanlike of frivilous psyching." 7NT is clearly a psych. Given some people's reaction to this case, it might very well be verboten behavior in the ACBL. I don't see the justification for awarding avg- to the psycher, though. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 08:47:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6EMkwW28004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:46:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6EMkpt27998 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:46:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-56-162.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.56.162]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6EMiHP23930; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:44:18 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <009b01c10cb6$b6f9f420$e5377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:01:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? >. I suspect (I hope) that he would agree with you > (and Marvin, and me :) that if West does as you > say, he should be penalized. > +=+ Always provided that the Director quotes on the appeal form the number of the Law that West has violated. ~ 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 Jul 15 09:49:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ENnHm02433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:49:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ENnAt02402 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:49:11 +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 PAA04384 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:47:27 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:46:09 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <200107142037.QAA10064@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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, 14 Jul 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Jesper Dybdal > > > > I haven't really given any serious thought to possible alternatives. The > > primary benefit of "inadvertent" is that it seems - to me - to work very well > > in practice. > > Perhaps this is the key point. If everyone else is happy with it, I'll > go along. But I am not so sure it is working well. I see all too many > changes that I believe to be changes of mind yet still allowed. I for one am not absolutely horrified with "inadvertent" the way I am with 25B. It does work well most the time. For that matter, no rules at all works well MOST of the time. However - I still believe there is something to gain, and absolutely nothing to lose, by striking it. I think it'd work just fine to say. "A bid is made when [written, pulled, said, whatever]. No call may be changed after LHO has called subsequently. All attempts to change calls are subject to L16." That is, if you mispull and immediately correct, and it's obvious to everyone that's what happened, you haven't conveyed anything untoward about your hand and all is well. If you change your mind, or look like you MIGHT have tried to change your mind, or you don't notice until too late and forget how to keep your trap shut, the onus is on partner to avoid taking advantage. I could live with allowing purposeful changes of call, subject to L16, or I could live with punishing clearly-change-of-mind calls with a "LHO can choose to accept or reject" type law. I would prefer the latter. I see no sane reason why people who are too stupid to look at their bidding-cards as or immediately after they pull them should be allowed redress at all. Maybe I need to move to Sweden. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 10:00:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ENxwN02880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:59:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ENxrt02875 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 09:59:53 +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 PAA04849 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:58:15 -0800 Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:56:57 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <006701c10ca5$76fe50c0$e5377bd5@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree that bidding 7NT is a bit weird, but I can't see any particular reason why it deserves to be punished or even discouraged. It'd make much more sense, really, to come right out and say to the new pair "your opponents have some information about your hands they aren't entitled to; it may well be that the information is inconsequential or it may not; would you like to play it or take an average-plus?" Most pairs come to play bridge and would opt to try to play it (the director telling them if A+ has to be awarded anyway), but I can't see anything unethical or bad-for-the-game in choosing whichever course maximizes my profit. I don't buy the "E-W took a chance because their side might not have called yet" comment. If only N or S had previously spoken, the director would simply order N or S to repeat that first call and then let everyone bid normally thereafer. Fascinating tactic. Not one it had ever occurred to me to try. I'll file it away along with Rottweiler Coup (which I also considered legal and ethical) and wait ten years for it to come up at my table to try it... In the minority again, GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 15:12:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6F5C2n29438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:12:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6F5Btt29434 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 15:11:56 +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 f6F5Aba17960 for ; Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002901c10cec$45fe6680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107122115.RAA19030@cfa183.harvard.edu> <009301c10bd1$10b8c720$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 22:09:02 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > >I suggest that "or estimated" be included in L12C1 next time. Then maybe > >TDs/ACs won't think in terms of "what would have happened" but rather in > >terms of "what might have happened." > > It is a question of what *did* happen. Was a result obtained? Fine, > move on to L12C2. > I guess I haven't made myself understood. L12C2 is where a score must sometimes be estimated, which then becomes a result that is in effect "obtained." Some TDs/ACs still think that a result has to be obvious in order to be assigned per L12C2, and when it isn't obvious they resort to L12C1. So often we have read, at least in these parts, that an artificial score was assigned because it was not possible to decide for sure what result would have been obtained absent an infraction. They need to realize that rough estimates are quite acceptable for assignment of scores under L12C2. Just looking quickly, I see Miami NABC Appeal #4. "Since the Committee could not determine with confidence the result that waa likely to have occurred on the board had West not given the misinformation, E/W were assigned Average Plus and N/S Average Minus." Hey, you don't have to have "confidence"; you can *estimate*. People need to be told that, and I'm just saying that one way to do that is to change L12C1 as I suggest. It's only making it agree with the definition section, after all. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 15 20:21:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FALB319870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:21:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FAL5t19866 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:21:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id EF1C4D7CAD for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:18:40 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:18:40 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200107142037.QAA10064@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6FAL7t19867 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 15:46:09 -0800 (AKDT), Gordon Bower wrote: >I think it'd work just fine to say. "A bid is made when [written, pulled, >said, whatever]. No call may be changed after LHO has called >subsequently. All attempts to change calls are subject to L16." This would allow you to change your mind after you've seen LHO's reaction to your call. E.g., you decide to bid game, knowing that you've stretched a bit, then you notice that LHO is thinking. He could hardly be thinking about anything other than a double, so you now change your call to pass. Partner has UI which in practice would inhibit from bidding game, but the auction is probably over before it reaches partner, and not bidding game is what we would want him to do anyway. It seems to me that this consideration means that from the moment a call is legally made and it thus has become LHO's turn, changes of mind must not be allowed. I.e., you must not be allowed to change your mind after it has been LHO's turn. >From this it follows that either (a) the moment of making the call must be defined to be so late that you've had time to check what you are actually bidding, or (b) it must be legal to change inadvertent (and only inadvertent) calls during a period following the moment the call is made. We currently have (b), and I don't see a need to change it (other than getting rid of the "pause for thought" clause). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 15 23:43:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FDgoO19946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:42:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from math.la.asu.edu (grabiner@math.la.asu.edu [129.219.51.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FDgit19942 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by math.la.asu.edu (8.9.3 (PHNE_21697)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA07894; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:38:55 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 06:38:55 -0700 (MST) From: David Grabiner To: Ed Reppert cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: > > I don't think you can give NS avg+, because they failed to ensure > that the original EW were the correct pair before starting the round, > so they're at best partly at fault. I can't find a law requiring them > to do that, though. At least, not specifically. A stationary pair is primarily responsible for ensuring that the conditions of contest are followed. However, when an adjusted score needs to be awarded because the wrong pair is seated, the TD can determine who is responsible. One of Kaplan's articles mentions the case of North asking, "Pair 2?" and East 1, who is not concentrating, replying "Yes". N-S should not be penalized here at all. Another case, which I have encountered: Table H1`was between G14 and H14. North at H1 asks an arriving E-W, "Pair 12?" E-W are pair 12, but in section G. North did his job, and should not be penalized. In either of these cases, if a board becomes unplayable, it should be A+ to N-S and A- to E-W, and if someone else has to take an adjusted score, E-W should get a PP. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 02:28:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FGRiB20038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:27:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FGRct20034 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:27:38 +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 MAA09232 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:25:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA21947 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:25:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:25:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107151625.MAA21947@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >At the time he grasped the 2S card (and in fact until the card cleared > >the box), changing the bid because of a change of mind was legal. The > >difficult point is whether the change of mind came before or after the > >bid was "made." If the player cannot say, how can the TD? > From: Jesper Dybdal > No, I think you've got this backwards. He did actually make the bid of 2S. Yes. > The only point to consider then is whether the reason for his doing so was a > mechanical slip or not. Not exactly, I think. Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. Doesn't L25A require the call "made" to be other than the one intended _at the instant of the call_? The problem here is that no one knows what call was intended at the critical instant. _Before_ then, we know the 2S call was intended. _After_ then, we know 2NT was intended. But exactly _at_, we don't know. > If there was no mechanical slip, then he has actually > deliberately bid 2S (which would be a very strange thing to do if he changed > his mind before it cleared the box). Not so strange, I think. His brain had changed its mind but not yet transmitted its new instructions to the arm muscles. (This isn't phrased very well, but I hope people will understand what I mean.) In my example, the player might well have changed his mind before even grasping the bidding card, and his arm just continued its pre-ordained action. The player doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. However, I think Jesper has made my case for me. He says the correct legal ruling is that no L25A change is allowed, but we all know the real life ruling is that the change will be allowed. Most days, the TD won't even be called. Isn't it a problem that the Laws and real life are so different? (If everyone says 'no', then I'll be quiet.) > >Under the rules I postulated (and in effect nearly everywhere), "taking > >hold" has nothing to do with the ruling. The critical moment is when > >the bidding card clears the box, not when it is grasped. > > No. That moment is the moment the bid is made, and it is critical for a > determination of whether or not the bid was made; but that determination is > irrelevant here, since we know that he did not change the bid before lifting > the clear of the box. The bid was definitely made, as 2S, so that moment is > not interesting for the ruling. We know that he did not change the bid before > it cleared the box. What is interesting is whether there was a mechanical > slip or not. See above. We seem to have a different interpretation of L25. It says nothing about "mechanical slips," only about whether a call was "inadvertent." A mechanical slip is the usual reason for an inadvertent call, but it can hardly be the only reason. Consider spoken bidding, for example. As far as I can tell, the only standard is to compare the player's intent at the instant the call was "made" to the call that actually emerges. In this case, the (possible) reason for the 2S bid was very similar to a slip of the tongue in spoken bidding. There was definitely a change of mind, but if it was in time, then the 2S call was not the one intended, and L25A still applies. Still, I am not trying to convince anyone that allowing a change under L25A is correct; I am trying to say it is difficult to decide. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 02:43:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FGhSi20059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:43:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FGhMt20055 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-145.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.145]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D1A5D36B82; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:40:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000e01c10d4c$2bbd8200$91b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:39:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >> >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform >> >> the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the >> >> board will be cancelled. >> > >> >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid >> >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to >> >accept to play and he can force this. >> >> Where in the laws do you find that option for West? I join >> Marvin: if West makes a call with the purpose to make >> this board unplayable and succeeds, he should be >> penalized: average-minus or even less. And I think that it >> isn't even necessary to explain this before. Of course >> nothing should be told about the previous auction. >> >+=+ My heart is with you but my head still has its nose >in the law book. Good, it was with my nose in the lawbook that I came to 'my' conclusion. In L15 it says that the board needs to played if possible and it describes the criterion. It is reminding me that the correct >contestants must be informed of their rights, so West will >know that he has his normal right to make any call. It is >saying: "But look here, it says that the Director must >cancel the board if any call differs from that in the first >auction; and it does not say there is any illegality in a >choice of wild or gambling action by West. And if West >has acted within the Law we have no grounds on which >to treat him as anything but an innocent party." If we >argue that a player who misbids is not subject to >sanction for doing so, when the Law allows it, we must >equally accept that this West player cannot be penalized >for having broken no Law. The law does not give any power, >that I can see, to pass judgement on the player's choice >of call or his reasons for choosing it. Maybe it should, but >it doesn't. I am not so sure about that. If the choice isn't related to the hand anymore and just made to make the board unplayable such a player is not following the instructions of the TD anymore: to play the board. If the TD should not accept a statement that the pair doesn't want to play this board he shouldn't accept other behaviour with the same effect. That is not just my heart, but laws as well. L74A2, 74A3, L 72B2. And to me it seems not adequate to describe such a call as wild or gambling; what gamble? It is just refusing to play the board. That is what should be tackled. ton ~ 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 Jul 16 04:12:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FIBZE00540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 04:11:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FIBTt00536 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 04:11:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6FIA4915927 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:10:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002401c10d59$2cd9b480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] L12C2 - assigning matchpoints Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 11:06:47 -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 L12C2 says that the scores awarded to both sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing. Someone has asked me how the former option is accomplished, and I don't know the answer. This came up before on BLML, but I don't remember if there was a consensus. L12C2 seems to say that you come up with a score for both sides, not that you award an arbitrary number of matchpoints to each side. Is it possible that it means determining the matchpoint result for each side, assign those matchpoints, and let the table result stand for the matchpoints of other contestants? Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 16 06:03:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FK2lh00580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:02:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FK2gt00576 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:02:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id c.3e.e67555d (3960); Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:00:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:00:05 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, cyaxares@lineone.net, hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3e.e67555d.28835045_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_3e.e67555d.28835045_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I couldn't keep quiet on this one. There are no direct references in the Law to adjudicate what has happened when the player called 7 NT in this scenario. It is possible to stretch some provisions by taking them somewhat out of context (i.e., Ton's latest submission), but Grattan is right that there is no Law that can be referenced as violated. However, there is a Law that can be applied. Law 91. The purpose of this Law is to be able to control those actions which are NOT covered in the other Laws whose context is to establish some degree of fairness in Bridge when a Law is violated. This is analogous to the LOM who comes to the game to make psychic calls without regard to wanting to play bridge, demonstrate skill, care about his results, or be at the same party as the rest of the room. Should there be such a Law? I doubt the necessity. I'd find it hard to believe that were I to give a major disciplinary penalty in matchpoints, IMPs, etc., for frivolous and non-bridge action (non-appealable by Law -- but still appealable as a misapplication of the Law) or better yet disqualify the player for an action which was not an attempt to play sane bridge, it would be difficult for an AC or Tournament Committee to take exception. Besides, most SOs have Rules and Regulations which forbid this kind of action, and which are just as correct to impose when this happens. Like Maury Brownstein was famous for teaching, "...you can't bar psychic calls, but you can bar psychers....." Hit 'im with a disciplinary, and let him appeal your "illegal" application of the Law. Works for me! Kojak --part1_3e.e67555d.28835045_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I couldn't keep quiet on this one.

There are no direct references in the Law to adjudicate what has happened
when the player called 7 NT in this scenario.  It is possible to stretch some
provisions by taking them somewhat out of context (i.e., Ton's latest
submission), but Grattan is right that there is no Law that can be referenced
as violated.

However, there is a Law that can be applied.  Law 91. The purpose of this Law
is to be able to control those actions which are NOT covered in the other
Laws whose context is to establish some degree of fairness in Bridge when a
Law is violated. This is analogous to the LOM who comes to the game to make
psychic calls without regard to wanting to play bridge, demonstrate skill,
care about his results, or be at the same party as the rest of the room.

Should there be such a Law?  I doubt the necessity. I'd find it hard to
believe that were I to give a major disciplinary penalty in matchpoints,
IMPs, etc., for frivolous and non-bridge action (non-appealable by Law -- but
still appealable as a misapplication of the Law) or better yet disqualify the
player for an action which was not an attempt to play sane bridge, it would
be difficult for an AC or Tournament Committee to take exception.  Besides,
most SOs have Rules and Regulations which forbid this kind of action, and
which are just as correct to impose when this happens. Like Maury Brownstein
was famous for teaching, "...you can't bar psychic calls, but you can bar
psychers....."

Hit 'im with a disciplinary, and let him appeal your "illegal" application of
the Law.  Works for me!

Kojak --part1_3e.e67555d.28835045_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 07:17:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FLGOV11278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:16:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FLGHt11274 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:16:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BE85D7CAD for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:13:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:13:53 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200107151625.MAA21947@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200107151625.MAA21947@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6FLGKt11275 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:25:13 -0400 (EDT), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> The only point to consider then is whether the reason for his doing so was a >> mechanical slip or not. > >Not exactly, I think. Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement. Yes. I'm beginning to see what you mean. >Not so strange, I think. His brain had changed its mind but not yet >transmitted its new instructions to the arm muscles. (This isn't >phrased very well, but I hope people will understand what I mean.) In >my example, the player might well have changed his mind before even >grasping the bidding card, and his arm just continued its pre-ordained >action. The player doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. I have never encountered at player who believed that his actions happened in that way, but I'll admit that though it is improbable, it may not be quite impossible that a player could convince me that it happened. >Isn't it a problem that the Laws and real life >are so different? (If everyone says 'no', then I'll be quiet.) I say no. No matter what rules we have, there will always be borderline rulings. Such ruling can go either way, and my basic opinion about borderline cases is that there are some cases near the borderline where both rulings must be considered equally good. I think you are right that in the L25A case, the TD will not be called in some not-too-rare cases which, on investigation, could be determined to definitely be on the other side of the border. I have no real problem with that: sometimes players get away with changing their mind, but normally only when they change their mind very shortly after the time when they could have done so legally. It happens so randomly and gives such a small advantage (in the long run) that I for one don't see it as a problem in practice. >See above. We seem to have a different interpretation of L25. It says >nothing about "mechanical slips," only about whether a call was >"inadvertent." A mechanical slip is the usual reason for an inadvertent >call, but it can hardly be the only reason. Consider spoken bidding, >for example. As far as I can tell, the only standard is to compare the >player's intent at the instant the call was "made" to the call that >actually emerges. In spoken bidding, it is a question of not knowing what you are saying. I have some problem understanding how you can use a bidding card inadvertently when you know which card it is. If I take 2S out of the box, and I know I am taking 2S out of the box, can it then be called inadvertent? I'm not certain that you're not right - but I still haven't met a single real-life example of a bidding-box call that was not a mechanical slip and which could nevertheless be called inadvertent, and I don't expect to ever meet one. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 09:23:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6FNMCH28140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:22:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6FNM5t28106 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:22:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id XAA22716 for ; Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:19:54 GMT Message-ID: <4eoZ73BpSiU7EwT$@asimere.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:18:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] lost subject MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006701c10ca5$76fe50c0$e5377bd5@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes >> >+=+ My heart is with you but my head still has its nose >in the law book. It is reminding me that the correct >contestants must be informed of their rights, so West will >know that he has his normal right to make any call. It is >saying: "But look here, it says that the Director must >cancel the board if any call differs from that in the first >auction; and it does not say there is any illegality in a >choice of wild or gambling action by West. And if West >has acted within the Law we have no grounds on which >to treat him as anything but an innocent party." If we >argue that a player who misbids is not subject to >sanction for doing so, when the Law allows it, we must >equally accept that this West player cannot be penalized >for having broken no Law. The law does not give any power, >that I can see, to pass judgement on the player's choice >of call or his reasons for choosing it. Maybe it should, but >it doesn't. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I agree with Grattan. Wow! -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 11:28:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G1S8n29048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:28:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G1S2t29044 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:28:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-125-29.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.1.125.29] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6G1OsP17636; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:24:54 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <008d01c10d96$5292ea60$1d7d01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000e01c10d4c$2bbd8200$91b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:25:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 1:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > >> > >> >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform > >> >> the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the > >> >> board will be cancelled. > >> > > >> >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid > >> >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to > >> >accept to play and he can force this. > >> > >> if West makes a call with the purpose to make > >> this board unplayable and succeeds, he should be > >> penalized: average-minus or even less. And I think that it > >> isn't even necessary to explain this before. Of course > >> nothing should be told about the previous auction. > >> > >+=+ My heart is with you but my head still has its nose > >in the law book. > > > Good, it was with my nose in the lawbook that I came > to 'my' conclusion. In L15 it says that the board needs > to played if possible > +=+ I must get a new law book. Mine does not contain > this statement in Law 15.+=+ > > and it describes the criterion. > +=+ My copy of Law 15 just tells the Director how he should proceed. It says nothing about critical judgements. +=+ > > It is reminding me that the correct > >contestants must be informed of their rights, so West will > >know that he has his normal right to make any call. It is > >saying: "But look here, it says that the Director must > >cancel the board if any call differs from that in the first > >auction; and it does not say there is any illegality in a > >choice of wild or gambling action by West. And if West > >has acted within the Law we have no grounds on which > >to treat him as anything but an innocent party." If we > >argue that a player who misbids is not subject to > >sanction for doing so, when the Law allows it, we must > >equally accept that this West player cannot be penalized > >for having broken no Law. The law does not give any power, > >that I can see, to pass judgement on the player's choice > >of call or his reasons for choosing it. Maybe it should, but > >it doesn't. > > I am not so sure about that. If the choice isn't related to > the hand anymore and just made to make the board > unplayable such a player is not following the instructions > of the TD anymore: to play the board. If the TD should not > accept a statement that the pair doesn't want to play > this board he shouldn't accept other behaviour with the > same effect. That is not just my heart, but laws as well. > L74A2, 74A3, L 72B2. And to me it seems not adequate > to describe such a call as wild or gambling; what gamble? > It is just refusing to play the board. That is what should > be tackled. > +=+ I would find it difficult to construe the action of making a legal bid as being offensive, causing 'annoyance or embarrassment to another player' [74A2}; in making the call the player has followed correct procedure, so 74A3 is not relevant; and since the player has infringed no law 72B2 does not bear on the subject. A player who proceeds with the auction by making a legal call is not refusing to play the board, and he is indeed following the instructions of the TD who has required a second auction to begin; I do not think the TD will presume to tell him what calls he may make since the law places no restriction on a player who did not participate in the first auction. An emotional response to an occurrence such as this is understandable, but I think we have to be very careful in proposing to take steps the Laws do not embrace; that is a very slippery slope to go down for it sets a precedent for oppressive action whenever the Law is judged to be inadequate. "Tyranny begins where the law ends." I would prefer to abide by principles that the Director shall not base his ruling on a belief that the explicit provisions of the Law are unduly severe upon, or advantageous to, either side at the table, and that the Director is bound by the Laws and by the Regulations authorized by the Laws. It is also my opinion that there can be no recourse to Law 91 (see Kojak's proposition) in respect of a player's lawful action. In my reading of them the Laws state irrefutably in this case what the Director must currently do and I hold it a denial of the Law if a Director's feelings intervene between him and his duty to apply the law dispassionately. ~ 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 Jul 16 11:50:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G1oJd03251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:50:19 +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 f6G1o0t03152 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15LxTw-000JQ4-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:47:35 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:05:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6G1o3t03169 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes > Sorry, I couldn't keep quiet on this one. > > There are no direct references in the Law to adjudicate what has > happened > when the player called 7 NT in this scenario. ═It is possible to > stretch some > provisions by taking them somewhat out of context (i.e., Ton's > latest > submission), but Grattan is right that there is no Law that can be > referenced > as violated. I think it is time I commented. I was asked this problem originally, and like Kojak I immediately wanted to know what law had been violated. Unlike Kojak I am not prepared to hit 'em hard unless there is a Law - but I believe there is. To review, a player sits down and is told that the board was started before, and if the bidding is the same will continue, but will be cancelled if the bidding is different. The oppos, who have played the board once part-way are instructed to bid the same. First of all, there was a suggestion that this pair not be told this. That is illegal under L9B2. TDs tell players rulings. Now, a player decides to bid 7NT on a hand not worth 7NT, thereby presumably getting the board cancelled. Is this illegal? Suppose he asks the TD whether he can do this, what should the TD say? At this game of bridge you are basically required to do your best to win so long as what you do does not offend a Law. The Law that you might offend in this case is L74A2. If you act frivolously and psyche for the hell of it you are spoiling the game for others, and we deal with you under L74A2. Note, however, that if you psyche in an attempt to win, we do not apply L74A2 even though psyches may upset the oppos: in effect our interpretation of L74A2 is that it forbids *unreasonably* upsetting the oppos. So what about this case? If the player merely wants to get to the bar, has no real interest in the game, and just opens 7NT so he can get it over with, then he has breached L74A2: he has acted frivolously, and now we can deal with him. Now consider a different scenario: suppose his current oppos are the best players present, and he is doing quite well. To get A+ against them is likely to enhance his chances of winning the event. Thus his aim in opening 7NT is to increase his chances of winning the event: the fact that his current opponents are not happy is irrelevant. So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is that to open 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 unless it is done to maximise the player's chances of winning the event. If it is a breach of L74A2 I hit him with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it is acceptable in the circumstances. The ACBL has a regulation that you must do your best to win *each board*. I considered the effect of this on this decision, and I think it just strengthens what I said: if a player opens 7NT so as to get to the bar, he has not tried to win that board, and is in breach of the ACBL reg. If he believes it enhances his chances on the board then it is legal under that reg. > However, there is a Law that can be applied. ═Law 91. The purpose > of this Law > is to be able to control those actions which are NOT covered in the > other > Laws whose context is to establish some degree of fairness in > Bridge when a > Law is violated. This is analogous to the LOM who comes to the game > to make > psychic calls without regard to wanting to play bridge, demonstrate > skill, > care about his results, or be at the same party as the rest of the > room. > > Should there be such a Law? ═I doubt the necessity. I'd find it > hard to > believe that were I to give a major disciplinary penalty in > matchpoints, > IMPs, etc., for frivolous and non-bridge action (non-appealable by > Law -- but > still appealable as a misapplication of the Law) or better yet > disqualify the > player for an action which was not an attempt to play sane bridge, > it would > be difficult for an AC or Tournament Committee to take exception. ═ > Besides, > most SOs have Rules and Regulations which forbid this kind of > action, and > which are just as correct to impose when this happens. Like Maury > Brownstein > was famous for teaching, "...you can't bar psychic calls, but you > can bar > psychers....." > > Hit 'im with a disciplinary, and let him appeal your "illegal" > application of > the Law. ═Works for me! I do not really object to this approach, but I note you include "for frivolous and non-bridge action" and I think 7NT might qualify in some circumstances, not in others, as explained 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 Mon Jul 16 11:50:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G1oAY03199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:50:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G1o0t03153 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15LxTw-000JQ3-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:47:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:45:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? 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 Grabiner writes >On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> I don't think you can give NS avg+, because they failed to ensure >> that the original EW were the correct pair before starting the round, >> so they're at best partly at fault. I can't find a law requiring them >> to do that, though. At least, not specifically. > >A stationary pair is primarily responsible for ensuring that the >conditions of contest are followed. I do not believe that this means they are responsible in any way for ensuring they have the correct opponents unless they are instructed to do so. Primarily does not mean completely. The movement of an E/W pair is not subject to N/S's control. -- 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 Jul 16 16:59:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G6x2o20251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:59:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G6wtt20218 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:58:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-98-202.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.98.202]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6G6uKP23955; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:56:20 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000901c10dc4$9f8db560$ca62063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <4eoZ73BpSiU7EwT$@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] lost subject Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:57:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 12:18 AM Subject: [BLML] lost subject > > In article <006701c10ca5$76fe50c0$e5377bd5@dodona>, Grattan Endicott > writes > >> > >+=+ My heart is with you but my head still has its nose > >in the law book. It is reminding me that the correct > >contestants must be informed of their rights, so West will > >know that he has his normal right to make any call. It is > >saying: "But look here, it says that the Director must > >cancel the board if any call differs from that in the first > >auction; and it does not say there is any illegality in a > >choice of wild or gambling action by West. And if West > >has acted within the Law we have no grounds on which > >to treat him as anything but an innocent party." If we > >argue that a player who misbids is not subject to > >sanction for doing so, when the Law allows it, we must > >equally accept that this West player cannot be penalized > >for having broken no Law. The law does not give any power, > >that I can see, to pass judgement on the player's choice > >of call or his reasons for choosing it. Maybe it should, but > >it doesn't. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I agree with Grattan. Wow! > -- +=+ There is, of course, a problem and the sense of outrage that my colleague's reflect in their responses should be generally shared. However, the answer is not for the Director to create new law at the table, nor for ACs to make judgements that do not stand up in law. We are in considerable trouble if we give way to any such urge. ~ 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 Jul 16 17:42:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G7g8N05699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:42:08 +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 f6G7g0t05652 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:42:00 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA28640; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:39:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 16 09:38:14 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5ZSWO4F7U008ZDB@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:39:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:37:51 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:39:23 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , ton kooijman , Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BA@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 Well we don't agree here, which in itself makes it worth to add this subject to our agenda for the new laws. I put some remarks between the lines below and then will quit the subject till future discussions > >> >> As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform > > >> >> the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the > > >> >> board will be cancelled. > > >> > > > >> >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid > > >> >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to > > >> >accept to play and he can force this. > > >> > > >> if West makes a call with the purpose to make > > >> this board unplayable and succeeds, he should be > > >> penalized: average-minus or even less. And I think that it > > >> isn't even necessary to explain this before. Of course > > >> nothing should be told about the previous auction. > > >> > > >+=+ My heart is with you but my head still has its nose > > >in the law book. > > > > > > Good, it was with my nose in the lawbook that I came > > to 'my' conclusion. In L15 it says that the board needs > > to played if possible > > > +=+ I must get a new law book. Mine does not contain > > this statement in Law 15.+=+ Nor in mine, but this doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't say that as an implication. And I thought you to know better than you did here. > > > > and it describes the criterion. > > > +=+ My copy of Law 15 just tells the Director how he > should proceed. It says nothing about critical judgements. +=+ It says that players must repeat calls they made previously, rather critical I think. Or does the word criterion not mean what the translation of it in Dutch means? It would be nice if we could get the minutes of the drafting committee when it invented this marvellous solution. If we found that the reason not to ask the concurrence of the players is that they may show their unwillingness to play by disturbing the auction you might have a point, but it can't read like that, since only the new comers get that privilige. > > > > It is reminding me that the correct > > >contestants must be informed of their rights, so West will > > >know that he has his normal right to make any call. It is > > >saying: "But look here, it says that the Director must > > >cancel the board if any call differs from that in the first > > >auction; and it does not say there is any illegality in a > > >choice of wild or gambling action by West. And if West > > >has acted within the Law we have no grounds on which > > >to treat him as anything but an innocent party." If we > > >argue that a player who misbids is not subject to > > >sanction for doing so, when the Law allows it, we must > > >equally accept that this West player cannot be penalized > > >for having broken no Law. This is true as far as general principles are described. The question here is whether the west player breaks a law when he makes a call with just the purpose not to play the board. It is a pity that you stick to these general principles and do not touch the subject we are talking about. The law does not give any power, > > >that I can see, to pass judgement on the player's choice > > >of call or his reasons for choosing it. If you reject the laws doing so, there indeed aren't any left to use. Maybe it should, but > > >it doesn't. > > > > I am not so sure about that. If the choice isn't related to > > the hand anymore and just made to make the board > > unplayable such a player is not following the instructions > > of the TD anymore: to play the board. If the TD should not > > accept a statement that the pair doesn't want to play > > this board he shouldn't accept other behaviour with the > > same effect. That is not just my heart, but laws as well. > > L74A2, 74A3, L 72B2. And to me it seems not adequate > > to describe such a call as wild or gambling; what gamble? > > It is just refusing to play the board. That is what should > > be tackled. > > > +=+ I would find it difficult to construe the action of making > a legal bid as being offensive, causing 'annoyance or > embarrassment to another player' [74A2}; in making the call > the player has followed correct procedure, so 74A3 is not > relevant; and since the player has infringed no law 72B2 does > not bear on the subject. you need some empathy and experience to understand this. North started the auction against the wrong pair after having tried to check its pair number. Then the right pair enters and has some humorous remarks. The TD explains what should be done, north relieved starts again and now his left hand opponent bids 7NT. Let us see how difficult it is to cause annoyance and (not just or) embarrassment to NS now. A player who proceeds with the > auction by making a legal call is not refusing to play the > board, This is a statement out of this world which should have alerted me before. There seems no base for discussion if you think so. and he is indeed following the instructions of the TD > who has required a second auction to begin; I do not think > the TD will presume to tell him what calls he may make When this happens (and it does regularly) my first statement is that 'we' are going to try to play the board NORMALLY etc. etc. > since the law places no restriction on a player who did not > participate in the first auction. > An emotional response to an occurrence such as this > is understandable empathy at the wrong moment , but I think we have to be very careful > in proposing to take steps the Laws do not embrace; that > is a very slippery slope to go down for it sets a precedent > for oppressive action whenever the Law is judged to be > inadequate. "Tyranny begins where the law ends." And chaos where it isn't followed (just another statement). I would > prefer to abide by principles that the Director shall not > base his ruling on a belief that the explicit provisions of > the Law are unduly severe upon, or advantageous to, > either side at the table, and that the Director is bound > by the Laws and by the Regulations authorized by the > Laws. It is also my opinion that there can be no recourse > to Law 91 (see Kojak's proposition) in respect of a > player's lawful action. > In my reading of them the Laws state irrefutably > in this case what the Director must currently do and I > hold it a denial of the Law if a Director's feelings intervene > between him and his duty to apply the law dispassionately. I could close with almost the same sentence to express my feelings: leave 'dispassionately' out and replace it with: 'according to its meaning'. A discussion like this should not be 'won' with words like (dis)passionately being used for the other. ton > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 17:50:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G7o9I08552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:50:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G7o2t08519 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:50:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.51]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6G7lZn29471 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:47:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:38:22 +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] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > > > > >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid > >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to > >accept to play and he can force this. > > Where in the laws do you find that option for West? West cannot be asked to bid the same as some other player. Why should we need to decide whether or not he makes a purposefull attempt to make the board unplayable or not ? > I join Marvin: if West > makes a call with the purpose to make this board unplayable and succeeds, he > should be penalized: Why ? He might have a valid point : even if I do make the same call as someone else - my opponents have some extra info : that both I and that other person made the same call - I don't want to play in that situation. > average-minus or even less. And I think that it isn't > even necessary to explain this before. Of course nothing should be told > about the previous auction. > That's of course true. > ton > > ton > > One problem remains > >though. West should not be told that the previous west has > >already bid. His tactic might backfire, if the previous > >West had not yet bid. > > I think this bit should be enough to discourage "deliberate" unplayable making. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 17:50:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G7oHe08591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6G7o9t08554 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:50:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.51]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6G7lin29547 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:47:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B517367.37D990C1@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:41:43 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > There are times, and this is one of them, when Herman strikes me as a > very literal person. :-) In this case, I think he means that Law 15C > allows for the possibility that *this* West might bid differently to > the previous one - and Law 15C doesn't prohibit him from doing so, it > simply says the score will be adjusted if he does. I suspect (I hope) > that he would agree with you (and Marvin, and me :) that if West does > as you say, he should be penalized. > No I don't agree with this. I believe the player should have the right to not play the board at all. "differs in any way". It's a different person making the call - that is a difference. I don't want a director to have to judge if my bid is the same as someone else's. I may accept to play - and most people do come to play - but I should not be forced to do so, and I don't believe that the laws force me to do so. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 18:05:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G858813823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:05:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G852t13792 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6G83Z904019 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:03:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005201c10dcd$9de26040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:54:03 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson >To review, a player sits down and is told that the board was started >before, and if the bidding is the same will continue, but will be >cancelled if the bidding is different. The oppos, who have played the >board once part-way are instructed to bid the same. >First of all, there was a suggestion that this pair not be told this. Not "this pair," but the new E/W pair (or individual) mentioned in the first sentence. Of course N/S have to be told that they must bid the same as before, and that if E/W bid differently the board will be cancelled. >That is illegal under L9B2. TDs tell players rulings. I think this applies to players who are involved in an irregularity, either as the OS or the NOS. The new E/W were not so involved, and don't have to be told anything other than to sit down and play bridge. They probably won't know that some bidding occurred previously, and it's best that they are not told. It's none of their business, and they have no legitimate need to know. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 16 18:09:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G896g15201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:09:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G890t15163 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:09:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6G87X904114 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005501c10dce$2b9b32e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107141605.JAA24541@emerald.oz.net> Subject: [BLML] Wandering Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:05:50 -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: "Donald Mamula" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > There is now plenty of room on the table for four CCs, four bidding > > boxes, boards, score slips, and pens/pencils. > > An additional suggestion to keep the table clutter-free..... > > ACBL pickup slips, when rotated 90 degrees, fit perfectly in a bidding box > behind the alert and stop cards. Keeps them out of the way, AND away from > the eyes of any "prowling" players who happen to wander past your table. > (And don't tell me there aren't players who cop the first board of a round > by looking at a score slip while ambling by) > I read something a while back about a new ACBL regulation saying that players will not be allowed to wander about the playing room with no apparent purpose. Nothing seems to have come of it, judging by what I saw at the Kansas City NABC this spring. Going for a drink of water seems to be popular. Is it really necessary to have more than three glasses of water, one to start and one at each break? Ivan Erdos used to get a drink after every round. Perhaps the water coolers should not be placed close to tables in play, as they were in KC. Many smokers are going outside at times other than breaks. This is really bad, because they often don't get back on time. I'd say don't allow it, but one hates to see people suffer. However, if a smoker starts noticeably rushing me during the play, that has the effect of slowing my play considerably. Some players are robbing others of their breaks by slow play, which isn't fair. They are getting more than 15 minutes per round and causing opponents to go out between rounds instead of during the breaks. In Kansas City TDs made a big announcement about how slow play was going to be a Zero Tolerance offense. I saw no evidence of that in the eight sessions of Opens that we played in, but I saw lots of slow play. I often see large areas of unused space in the big playing rooms at NABCs. Would it not be a good idea to put a wider aisle between sections and ask players to use it when they have to go somewhere? Note to pros: People are talking about the way some of you have little conferences outside the playing room during breaks. I'm sure the discussions have nothing to do with the current session, but they look suspicious to some skeptics. Why not wait until the game is over? Do these problems come up on the other side of the oceans from us? Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 16 18:21:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G8Ko416213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:20:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6G8Kit16209 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-92-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.92.92]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6G8IBP04200; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:18:11 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000601c10dd0$0f186460$5c5c063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:17:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? . > > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is > that to open 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 > unless it is done to maximise the player's chances of > winning the event. If it is a breach of L74A2 I hit him > with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it > is acceptable in the circumstances. > > The ACBL has a regulation that you must do your best > to win *each board*. I considered the effect of this on > this decision, and I think it just strengthens what I said: > if a player opens 7NT so as to get to the bar, he has not > tried to win that board, and is in breach of the ACBL > reg. If he believes it enhances his chances on the > board then it is legal under that reg. > +=+ So that if a player considers that a guaranteed 60% maximises his chances of winning the event you find the action acceptable. By which door did we come in here? Was I wrong to suspect that the player was making exactly that judgement? The WBF General Regulations require that players shall play to win at all times, and tie this to the aim of a winning session score; the ACBL's regulation is more tightly linked to the particular board. It is not all that clear, however, that a free option of 60% on a board does not meet such aims. We are talking more about continuing to "play bridge", a concept aired at times in appeals committees but not, to the best of my recollection, stated in the laws nor enshrined, for the most part, in regulations. And not easily defined if it does not simply mean playing the game within its rules but refers instead subjectively to some quality of propriety. We need a solution, obviously, but not something contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by outraged emotions. I also suggest it is not a desirable principle to have the Director imposing his choice of action on a player who has violated no law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 18:26:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G8QBO16239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:26:11 +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 f6G8Q5t16235 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6G8NA420854 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:23:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:23 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? 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: > Now consider a different scenario: suppose his current oppos are the > best players present, and he is doing quite well. To get A+ against > them is likely to enhance his chances of winning the event. Thus his > aim in opening 7NT is to increase his chances of winning the event: the > fact that his current opponents are not happy is irrelevant. > > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is that to open > 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 unless it is done to maximise the > player's chances of winning the event. If it is a breach of L74A2 I hit > him with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it is > acceptable in the circumstances. I don't often say this but I completely agree with David. I just want to offer another reason why a player may not want to risk playing the board. Not knowing how much of the auction took place at the other table I may be concerned that although the calls are the same the tempo differs. My opponents will be aware of this but we will not. Perhaps the other pair made a revealing tempo break that my own partnership would avoid. I think that, in general, we should be reluctant to rule the action frivolous. 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 Mon Jul 16 18:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6G8rEB16272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6G8r8t16268 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA30096; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:50:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 16 10:49:22 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K5ZVDP2TK6008YO6@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:50:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:48:51 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:50:22 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David St wrote: > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is > that to open > > 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 unless it is done to > maximise the > > player's chances of winning the event. If it is a breach > of L74A2 I hit > > him with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it is > > acceptable in the circumstances. and Tim responded: > I don't often say this but I completely agree with David. which not necessarily means that you 'completely agree' with David only once in a while. It is always nice to find at least a couple of people agreeing with you (me) and this one certainly is splitting our group. I > just want to > offer another reason why a player may not want to risk > playing the board. > Not knowing how much of the auction took place at the other > table I may be > concerned that although the calls are the same the tempo differs. My > opponents will be aware of this but we will not. Perhaps the > other pair > made a revealing tempo break that my own partnership would > avoid. I think > that, in general, we should be reluctant to rule the action frivolous. Now we are talking business. Of course we should be reluctant and these considerations might even lead to the conclusion that L15 should be rephrased. Why did I desperately look for a law to make my approach legal? Let us just read L12C and use the fact that we told the players to proceed normally etc. (and we know that normally includes careless, inferior but not irrational (7NT), and yes the TD should be able to make such judgements) ton > Tim > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 20:12:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GABgF16500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:11:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GABat16496 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:11:36 +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 f6GA9A405719 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:09:10 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6GA99c16388 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:09:09 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:09:09 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 LAA01179 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:09:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA09722 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:09:08 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:09:08 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200107161009.LAA09722@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L82C Directors Error X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk W N E S 1H P 1S P 1NT P 3D P* 3NT End *At this point, South says she meant to bid 2D. The TD is called, determines that South spoke as soon as she had seen what bid she had put down, but rules that it is too late to change her call. 3NT makes. TD talks to colleagues and concludes that he has given a wrong ruling. The TD and TDic decide they must give adjusted score(s) under L82C. If South bids 2D it is possible but not all certain that NS will reach 3NT. L82C calls for adjusted scores treating both sides as non-offending. L12C2 calls for the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. What is "the irregularity" in this case? Were we right to assign NS 3NT= because they were not damaged by the director's error? 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 Jul 16 20:41:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GAf3516532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:41:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GAeut16524 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:40:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15M5lo-0000n6-02; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:38:32 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.0.204.76]) by fmrl07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15M5lh-0BVZuiC; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:38:25 +0200 Message-ID: <3B52C414.AFE93A94@vwalther.de> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:38:12 +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 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? 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 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 17:01:09 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com References: Brian Meadows wrote: > > This is a question which surfaced on the OKBridge discussion > list. I think it's sufficiently unusual to post it here (with the > original author's permission). > .... On the german mailing list, the 'doubl', the same problem was discussed about two years ago. On N/S sat two well-known Life-Masters. When the TD had told E/W the situation (L15) East said: I know the law and want the average result. The TD told him that this was no more an available option because th law had changed in 1997. Afterwards West, who was dealer, opened 1 Spade with a single spade and only 5 points. Most of the german TD agreed that that no law permitts this action. IMHO the change of L15C in 1997 was made to avoid that a player has the possibility to chose his score. My suggestion was the TD should take advantage of the small difference between 'must' and 'shall'. He should not cancel the board. :-) Greetings, Volker -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 20:49:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GAmnq16546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:48:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GAmht16542 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:48:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:46:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003401c10de4$a59b2f80$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:47:02 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I must say I am entirely with Grattan here When the learned gentlemen and ladies who converse here spend 3 days trying to find what Law some poor unfortunate player has breached I think you are being bullies Brian told us originally "As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be cancelled. South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with a vulnerable bid of 7NT! " No mention there of public flogging / execution / disciplinary penalty if you dare to open 7NT and get the board cancelled At the very least if you want to rule this way you've got to tell the poor chap first (Law 10C.1?) if not TD error I feel has crept in Come on chaps - lighten up - put away your shocked and pained expressions - poor old West was satisfied with his 60% - so Ok he went against the Lawmakers intentions - but as we've said before if you intend a Law you should write it down and put it in the Law Book - keeping it a secret to be revealed when some poor West transgresses is a tad unfair I'm not sure how practical this Law is in many situations. Here in EBU tornaments the majority of players play slightly different systems from one another - prepared Club with 1+ 2+ 3+ Clubs - 5 card majors, 5 card Spades, 12-14 NT 13-15 NT 14-16 NT 15-17 NT, Weak Twos 0-7, 3-8, 5-9, 6-10, some with 5 cards, some 5/6, some 6 some Lucas Twos - all of these differences may make the same opening - eg 1H not necessarily the same at all PS I appeal the disciplinary penalty imposed by the nice man from Florida mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > Grattan Endicott 'Passione interdum movemur:et zelum putamus.' > ~ Thomas a Kempis > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:05 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > > . > > > > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is > > that to open 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 > > unless it is done to maximise the player's chances of > > winning the event. If it is a breach of L74A2 I hit him > > with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it > > is acceptable in the circumstances. > > > > The ACBL has a regulation that you must do your best > > to win *each board*. I considered the effect of this on > > this decision, and I think it just strengthens what I said: > > if a player opens 7NT so as to get to the bar, he has not > > tried to win that board, and is in breach of the ACBL > > reg. If he believes it enhances his chances on the > > board then it is legal under that reg. > > > +=+ So that if a player considers that a guaranteed 60% > maximises his chances of winning the event you find the > action acceptable. By which door did we come in here? > Was I wrong to suspect that the player was making > exactly that judgement? > The WBF General Regulations require that players > shall play to win at all times, and tie this to the aim of > a winning session score; the ACBL's regulation is more > tightly linked to the particular board. It is not all that > clear, however, that a free option of 60% on a board > does not meet such aims. We are talking more about > continuing to "play bridge", a concept aired at times > in appeals committees but not, to the best of my > recollection, stated in the laws nor enshrined, for the > most part, in regulations. And not easily defined if > it does not simply mean playing the game within its > rules but refers instead subjectively to some quality > of propriety. > We need a solution, obviously, but not something > contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by > outraged emotions. I also suggest it is not a desirable > principle to have the Director imposing his choice of > action on a player who has violated no law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 20:55:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GAtal16560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:55:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GAtVt16556 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:50:29 +0100 Message-ID: <004001c10de5$3b05eb00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Kooijman, A." , , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:51:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk But Ton it's not irrational to bid 7NT if you know that will curtail the board and you will score 60% - anyway what does the TD say to the player - "you've got to bid rationally or I'll award a diciplinary penalty" - try telling Mad Dog that mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: ; Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:50 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > David St wrote: > > > > > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is > > that to open > > > 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 unless it is done to > > maximise the > > > player's chances of winning the event. If it is a breach > > of L74A2 I hit > > > him with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it is > > > acceptable in the circumstances. > > > and Tim responded: > > > I don't often say this but I completely agree with David. > > which not necessarily means that you 'completely agree' with David only > once in a while. > It is always nice to find at least a couple of people agreeing with you (me) > and this one certainly is splitting our group. > > > > I > > just want to > > offer another reason why a player may not want to risk > > playing the board. > > Not knowing how much of the auction took place at the other > > table I may be > > concerned that although the calls are the same the tempo differs. My > > opponents will be aware of this but we will not. Perhaps the > > other pair > > made a revealing tempo break that my own partnership would > > avoid. I think > > that, in general, we should be reluctant to rule the action frivolous. > > > Now we are talking business. Of course we should be reluctant and these > considerations might even lead to the conclusion that L15 should be > rephrased. > Why did I desperately look for a law to make my approach legal? Let us just > read L12C and use the fact that we told the players to proceed normally etc. > (and we know that normally includes careless, inferior but not irrational > (7NT), and yes the TD should be able to make such judgements) > > ton > > > > > Tim > > > > -- > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 21:33:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GBX8o16604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:33:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GBX2t16600 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:33:02 +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 NAA16746; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:30:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA07385; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:30:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010716133529.0082dbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:35:29 +0200 To: "Ben Schelen" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] overcast tables In-Reply-To: <00d101c10ba6$7ebee180$20043dd4@nl.iae.nl> References: <3.0.6.32.20010713144245.0081fbe0@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 16:16 13/07/01 +0200, you wrote: >Dear Alain, > >Why not two sets of CC's? Sothat you are doing your utmost to inform the ops >about your system and style. >Is it forbidden to play the acol system at even numbered tables and the >precision system at odd numbered tables? > >Make another set of CC's in WHITE colour and the "aggressive" ones in RED. >You take care of the CC's and put them on the table sothat your partner >coming at the table and seeing the colour is informed accordingly. >He will give you a big smile. Thank you very much. My partner's _vis comica_ will accomodate to this readily. L40E2 forbids looking at one's own convention card, not seeing it, so I suppose this is LR8. 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 Mon Jul 16 21:45:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GBjgI16628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:45:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GBjat16624 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:45:36 +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 NAA12591; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:39:42 +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 NAA13729; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:43:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010716134803.00822430@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:48:03 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <3B501B56.A71209EA@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:13 14/07/01 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to >accept to play and he can force this. One problem remains >though. West should not be told that the previous west has >already bid. His tactic might backfire, if the previous >West had not yet bid. AG : yes, and if he does want to gamble a bid, perhaps to gamble that the other West has already passed, because he 'knows' he will get a bottom against that pair if he does pas, nothing disallows him to do it. Of course, he would be better to open a slightly unusual 1H, or perhaps 4H, to avoid L74C6 being invoked. If some law explicitly allowing it is needed, try 72A4. Alas, the other E/W aren't, strictly speaking, opponents ? But if even OSs are allowed to play as they wish, possibly taking advantage of the infraction (72A5), surely 'neutrals' are ? Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 22:01:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GC1cB16655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:01:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GC1Wt16651 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:01:32 +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 NAA22593; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:58:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA22185; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:59:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010716140400.00828560@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:04:00 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L82C Directors Error In-Reply-To: <200107161009.LAA09722@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:09 16/07/01 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > > W N E S > 1H P 1S > P 1NT P 3D > P* 3NT End > >*At this point, South says she meant to bid 2D. >The TD is called, determines that South spoke as >soon as she had seen what bid she had put down, >but rules that it is too late to change her call. > >3NT makes. > >TD talks to colleagues and concludes that he has >given a wrong ruling. The TD and TDic decide they >must give adjusted score(s) under L82C. If South >bids 2D it is possible but not all certain that NS >will reach 3NT. > >L82C calls for adjusted scores treating both sides >as non-offending. L12C2 calls for the most favourable >result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. > >What is "the irregularity" in this case? AG : there was none, unless you rule that the TD commits irregularities (which he might, strictly speaking, if eg he scored the deals using IMPs in lieu of MPs, or diasllowed an allowed convention or the reverse) but I think he didn't this time. He just erred, like a player who misbids. In fact, the law to apply here is not 12C2, which applies to taking advantage from an incorrection, eg using UI ; but 12A3, which gives the TD much leeway. If I consider 3NT would be automatic, even after 2D, I'd rule no problem. Else, I think I'm compelled to attribute a split score : - to EW, 3NT making, because as NOS they can't receive less than what they achieved at the table ; - to NS, the most favourable reasonable result that could have occurred after the 2D bid, because the wrong ruling deprived them of this possible score. I vaguely remember we treated a similar case at the TD courses, the TD having enforced a pass by a player who, according to the rules, didn't have to, and the 'right' decision was the one above. This is dissimilar to cases where the decision is taken after the deal : in this case, if the AC want to correct the score, they won't affect the way the deal was played (eg, they decide that the 2 tricks that the TD gave for the revoke were not enough redress : they give 3 ; of course the OS gets his #tricks minus 3, because the play wasn't affected by the ruling). Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 16 23:23:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GDLpQ02888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:21:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d01.mx.aol.com (imo-d01.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GDLjt02884 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:21:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id s.11e.1b6ef9e (18707); Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:18:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <11e.1b6ef9e.288443ae@aol.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:18:38 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: cyaxares@lineone.net, bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11e.1b6ef9e.288443ae_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_11e.1b6ef9e.288443ae_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/16/01 4:19:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > > The WBF General Regulations require that players > shall play to win at all times, and tie this to the aim of > Please show me where it says that in the WBF general Regulations. I mean the tying it to a winning SESSION score. I read IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and I don't think it is a flight of fancy to apply ALL to the codified procedures for the playing of bridge, of which the Law is only a part. > the ACBL's regulation is more > tightly linked to the particular board. It is not all that > clear, however, that a free option of 60% on a board > does not meet such aims. We are talking more about > continuing to "play bridge", a concept aired at times > in appeals committees but not, to the best of my > recollection, stated in the laws nor enshrined, for the > most part, in regulations. And not easily defined if > it does not simply mean playing the game within its > rules but refers instead subjectively to some quality > Were not the Proprieties moved into the body of the Law for just that purpose -- to present them as more than just nice things to have? > We need a solution, obviously, but not something > contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by > If this means that you find my suggested actions to be "outraged emotions" so be it, but my attempts at humor have therefore fallen flat. Outraged emotions for me generally apply to those things which have a personal impact upon my life, not my job. >>>> I also suggest the > principle to have the Director imposing his choice of > action on a player who has violated no law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Couldn't agree more. I said he didn't violate the Laws on bidding, what bid to make, etc. He did violate the spirit of the Scope of the Laws. He intentionally made sure that the attempt of the Law, carefully crafted to protect him, to "...provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure..." wouldn't work in this instance by departing from what his normal actions would have been had the problem not occurred. Does anyone think he would have made the same bridge bid had there been no irrefularity and he could have been doubled? The purpose of Law 15C is to try to return the irregularity to what would have happened had it not occurred. I don't find it outre to penalize his action, nor an imposition on my part on a player's choice of actions. It is my feeling that his choice is, at that moment, limited to something that he can demonstrate by his system declarations, "normal," stylistic, and bridge. Slapping a 7NT out there on those cards makes it clear that he doesn't want to play bridge at this juncture, and I feel should be treated as such. Kojak > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --part1_11e.1b6ef9e.288443ae_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/16/01 4:19:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyaxares@lineone.net writes:




     The WBF General Regulations require that players
shall play to win at all times, and tie this to the aim of
a winning session score




Please show me where it says that in the WBF general Regulations.  I mean the
tying it to a winning SESSION score. I read IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, and I don't
think it is a flight of fancy to apply ALL to the codified procedures for the
playing of bridge, of which the Law is only a part.


the ACBL's regulation is more
tightly linked to the particular board. It is not all that
clear, however, that a free option of 60% on a board
does not meet such aims. We are talking more about
continuing to "play bridge", a concept aired at times
in appeals committees but not, to the best of my
recollection, stated in the laws nor enshrined, for the
most part, in regulations. And not easily defined if
it does not simply mean playing the game within its
rules but refers instead subjectively to some quality
of propriety.




Were not the Proprieties moved into the body of the Law for just that purpose
-- to present them as more than just nice things to have?



    We need a solution, obviously, but not something
contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by
outraged emotions.




If this means that you find my suggested actions to be "outraged emotions" so
be it, but my attempts at humor have therefore fallen flat. Outraged emotions
for me
generally apply to those things which have a personal impact upon my life,
not my job.  

>>>> I also suggest the

principle to have the Director imposing his choice of
action on a player who has violated no law.
                                         ~ Grattan ~  +=+
     




Couldn't agree more.  I said he didn't violate the Laws on bidding, what bid
to make, etc.  He did violate the spirit of the Scope of the Laws. He
intentionally made sure that the attempt of the Law, carefully crafted to
protect him, to "...provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from
correct procedure..." wouldn't work in this instance by departing from what
his normal actions would have been had the problem not occurred. Does anyone
think he would have made the same bridge bid had there been no irrefularity
and he could have been doubled?  The purpose of Law 15C is to try to return
the irregularity to what would have happened had it not occurred. I don't
find it outre to penalize his action, nor an imposition on my part on a
player's choice of actions. It is my feeling that his choice is, at that
moment, limited to something that he can demonstrate by his system
declarations, "normal," stylistic, and bridge. Slapping a 7NT out there on
those cards makes it clear that he doesn't want to play bridge at this
juncture, and I feel should be treated as such.

Kojak





















--part1_11e.1b6ef9e.288443ae_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 00:16:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GEG0U03009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:16:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GEFqt02967 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:15:53 +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 KAA28458 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:13:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA03017 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:13:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:13:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107161413.KAA03017@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > I think you are right that in the L25A case, the TD will not be called in some > not-too-rare cases which, on investigation, could be determined to definitely > be on the other side of the border. > > I have no real problem with that: sometimes players get away with changing > their mind, but normally only when they change their mind very shortly after > the time when they could have done so legally. It happens so randomly and > gives such a small advantage (in the long run) that I for one don't see it as > a problem in practice. Perhaps this is the bottom line. Thank you for an interesting discussion. I hope the rest of the list hasn't been too bored. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 00:16:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GEGCO03076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f36.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GEG6t03043 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:13:36 -0700 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:13:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:13:36 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2001 14:13:36.0565 (UTC) FILETIME=[81085E50:01C10E01] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Kooijman, A." >To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , >bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? >Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:50:22 +0200 > > >David St wrote: > > > > > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is > > that to open > > > 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 unless it is done to > > maximise the > > > player's chances of winning the event. If it is a breach > > of L74A2 I hit > > > him with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it is > > > acceptable in the circumstances. > > >and Tim responded: > > > I don't often say this but I completely agree with David. > >which not necessarily means that you 'completely agree' with David only >once in a while. >It is always nice to find at least a couple of people agreeing with you >(me) >and this one certainly is splitting our group. > > > > I > > just want to > > offer another reason why a player may not want to risk > > playing the board. > > Not knowing how much of the auction took place at the other > > table I may be > > concerned that although the calls are the same the tempo differs. My > > opponents will be aware of this but we will not. Perhaps the > > other pair > > made a revealing tempo break that my own partnership would > > avoid. I think > > that, in general, we should be reluctant to rule the action frivolous. > > >Now we are talking business. Of course we should be reluctant and these >considerations might even lead to the conclusion that L15 should be >rephrased. >Why did I desperately look for a law to make my approach legal? Let us just >read L12C and use the fact that we told the players to proceed normally >etc. >(and we know that normally includes careless, inferior but not irrational >(7NT), and yes the TD should be able to make such judgements) > >ton > The biggest problem I see with not allowing the 'irrational' bid of 7NT is that auctions which are identical may mean different things. For example, the first West player to play the board may be playing Magic Diamond and opens 1S (showing an unbal 8-12 with 4+S). The problem of the incorrect pair comes to light at thatpoint. When the correct pair comes to the table the West player playing Standard American opens 1S with a 5-2-4-2 12 HCP hand. Clearly this is a huge advantage to the N-S partnership. Should the NO West have to understand the bidding system and its nuances of the pair who incorrectly started the board? Even playing essentially the same system, there will be minor differences in style, valuation etc that could give more information to N-S. I also seem to remember in Lille (?) where Larry Cohen was put in the same situation as this. If I remember correctly, he made a very questionable, but not ludicrous, opening bid which was different from the option chosen the first time the board had been played. If I have the correct tournament, he did end up second in the event, so was clearly trying to win by taking his 60% board and moving on. -- 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 Tue Jul 17 00:33:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GEWe308880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:32:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GEWYt08852 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:32:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA29238 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA03045 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:30:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:30:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107161430.KAA03045@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >A stationary pair is primarily responsible for ensuring that the > >conditions of contest are followed. > From: David Stevenson > I do not believe that this means they are responsible in any way for > ensuring they have the correct opponents unless they are instructed to > do so. Primarily does not mean completely. The movement of an E/W pair > is not subject to N/S's control. This seems to be a matter of local custom and practice, although I confess never having seen a formal regulation on the subject. Around here (Boston area, USA), NS pairs are expected to check that the correct EW pair has arrived, and considering NS "partly at fault" for failing to check is reasonable. I gather that in other areas, the NS pairs are not considered to have any responsibility for the EW movement, and in those areas, considering them partly at fault would be unreasonable. The ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" says the score is usually avg+ to both pairs but goes on to say: The Director should give a warning to the NS or stationary pair who did not check the opponents' pair number to verify that the proper pair was playing the round. If the Director has previously warned the pair or feels the pair has been particularly negligent, he could award an outside procedural penalty of 1/4 of a board. I think this implies that NS have a duty to check the EW pair, but they are not necessarily expected to be aware of their duty. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 00:56:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GEttg17098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:55:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GEtnt17064 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:55:49 +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 KAA00303 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA03095 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:53:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107161453.KAA03095@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > If some law explicitly allowing it is needed, try 72A4. L40A seems adequate. Surely no one thinks 7NT was based on a partnership understanding. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 01:14:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GFEP423673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:14:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GFEIt23631 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:14:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6GFBHM20557 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:11:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107161511.f6GFBHM20557@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:11:17 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jul 16, 2001 12:45:33 AM 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: > > David Grabiner writes > >On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: > >> > >> I don't think you can give NS avg+, because they failed to ensure > >> that the original EW were the correct pair before starting the round, > >> so they're at best partly at fault. I can't find a law requiring them > >> to do that, though. At least, not specifically. > > > >A stationary pair is primarily responsible for ensuring that the > >conditions of contest are followed. > > I do not believe that this means they are responsible in any way for > ensuring they have the correct opponents unless they are instructed to > do so. Primarily does not mean completely. The movement of an E/W pair > is not subject to N/S's control. > And as I'm sure everyone here has experienced there are times (say a skip round) when you do everything reasonable ("You skipped, right", "You're pair 4, right?") and you *still* get the wrong pair. My personal best here is right pair number, wrong section. Never thought to ask that. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 01:27:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GFRLd28284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:27:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GFREt28248 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:27:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6GFOn920914 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:24:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107161524.f6GFOn920914@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:24:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jul 16, 2001 01:05:44 AM 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: > > I think it is time I commented. I was asked this problem originally, > and like Kojak I immediately wanted to know what law had been violated. > Unlike Kojak I am not prepared to hit 'em hard unless there is a Law - > but I believe there is. > > To review, a player sits down and is told that the board was started > before, and if the bidding is the same will continue, but will be > cancelled if the bidding is different. The oppos, who have played the > board once part-way are instructed to bid the same. > > First of all, there was a suggestion that this pair not be told this. > That is illegal under L9B2. TDs tell players rulings. And the players need to understand the consequences of their actions. They're in a position where failing to match the judgement of the previous pair gives them exactly 60%. They're entitled to know that. > > Now, a player decides to bid 7NT on a hand not worth 7NT, thereby > presumably getting the board cancelled. Is this illegal? Suppose he > asks the TD whether he can do this, what should the TD say? And he doesn't have to open 7NT. You may recall Larry Cohen's case from Lille. He opened 1H on a 10 count and a 4 card major. THe system bid in his case (light opens, big club) but fairly likely to be a different choice than what was opened at the other table. Would you (in this case the people who believe that opening 7NT here is wrong) tell say Zia that he couldn't open one of his weird 1NT (on a different hand of course)? On what basis? And if Zia can do this, why can't I? -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 01:43:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GFhao29181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:43:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hydra (hydra.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GFhTt29177 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:43:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.40.82]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.0 Patch 3 (built Mar 23 2001)) with SMTP id <0GGK00493LJ35S@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:28:18 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:38:32 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A To: "Kooijman, A." , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Bill & Bud Schoder , Grattan Endicott Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000001c10e0d$99a6e560$522828c4@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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8B4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | JOHN WROTE: | > I fail to see where this is not covered under Law 16A. In the | > first case, | > the | > player noticed their own mistake and Law 25A permits the change. | > In the second and third, the player notices the mistake ONLY | > when their | > partner alerted or answered a question. Both of these acts by | > partner are UI | > for | > the player who made the mistake. When that happens, the | > player can no longer | > save themselves becuase it was their partner that brought it to their | > attention, | > or may have brought it to their attention. | > | > So, there you go, | > | | > John | > P.S. I am not against the ACBL but I have nothing to do with | > their policies | > or | > interpretations. Here in Zone 5, we try to follow the WBF's lead. TON WROTE: | | Good to hear that. This makes it possible to advice you to change your | opinion. | | If you want to use the general 16A then 25A for sure should be considered to | be a specification which is dominant. The heading of 16 tells that | extraneous information might cause an infraction. Using it not automatically | is an infraction. This is one of the exceptions. Furthermore is the idea in | L16 that the suggestion leads a player when making his choice, with a | relation between the extraneous information and the content of the choice | made. Read L16A2 please. The only relation here is between the inadvertent | call noticed and the extraneous information. The player is not influenced | when making a choice between possible logical alternatives, the inadvertent | call not being a logical alternative. | | Once in a while there is reason to appreciate the laws as they are written> | | ton The heading of Law 16 says ".... To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of Law." Law 73A1 says "Communication between partners during the auction and the play shall be affected only by the means of the calls and plays themselves." Law 25A states "... for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought." It seems to me that I have a position here. A player makes a bridge mistake that violates no Law. The opponents may or may not benefit in the final result. The player revokes but does not catch it in time, so the Law protects the innocent side. The player makes a bidding mistake and fails to catch it in time themselves. However, partner gets involved and alerts or answers a question, and the player "pauses for thought" and notices their mistake. I still feel that the player's mistaken call stands when their partner makes them aware of the problem in any way. Obviously the player will "pause for thought" when partner does something strange - "Why is partner alerting?". I must say that I was never in favour of Law 25, although it has a definite use in certain cases. However, when partner gets involved, I believe that we have opened an unauthorized line of communication. John made aware of their mistake, or whether t 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 Tue Jul 17 01:43:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GFhP129175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:43:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GFhKt29171 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:43:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA02723 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA03152 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:40:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:40:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107161540.LAA03152@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ron Johnson > You may recall Larry Cohen's > case from Lille. He opened 1H on a 10 count and a 4 card major. > THe system bid in his case (light opens, big club) but fairly > likely to be a different choice than what was opened at the other table. Don't overlook "differs in any way." Unless the incorrect and correct pairs are playing much the same system, the same call is likely to have a different meaning. The ACBL gives the example of 1C artificial, 16+, versus the usual sort of natural 1C opener. Another poster here gave the example of "normal" 1S versus "Magic Diamond" 1S. In such blatant cases, it is obvious to cancel the board, but it may have to be cancelled even if the difference is more subtle. What about, for example, 1M opened by both an Acol and a Precision player? Or even K-S (five cards, can be fairly light) versus 2/1 (five cards, sound values)? And don't overlook the corresponding passes: the 2/1 bidder will pass some hands the K-S player would have opened, so the two passes are not really the same. I don't know about Cohen's case, but if the previous player was not a big clubber, it seems likely that the board was unplayable no matter what Cohen did. On the other hand, if the two pairs are playing the same system, there's at least a chance that identical calls will have the same meaning. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 02:40:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GGdhd10046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:39:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe59.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GGdct10042 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:39:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:37:09 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.235] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:46:20 -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: 16 Jul 2001 16:37:09.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[8EAC6790:01C10E15] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; ton kooijman ; Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 2:39 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? | and he is indeed following the instructions of the TD | > who has required a second auction to begin; I do not think | > the TD will presume to tell him what calls he may make | | When this happens (and it does regularly) my first statement is that 'we' | are going to try to play the board NORMALLY etc. etc. If it is useful to know that the law says what it is supposed to say then there must be a vision with which to compare and arrive at an answer. I know of no such vision provided by the WBF and it is useless to use the tautology that the laws are the vision. Now, if the law of the 15C situation is that the new players are to behave normally during the redo, then L15C does not express it. L15C clarifies that once the redo is successful, the action henceforward is handled normally. And that is not the same thing. However, if players are to feel compelled to bid 'normally' in the redo then you are talking about the destruction of L40. regards roger pewick | ton | | | > ~ 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 Jul 17 03:24:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GHOLP16898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:24:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GHOEt16854 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:24:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-98.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.98]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6GHLkM15302 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:21:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B52A50A.E8BB8AA5@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:25:46 +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] Opting for an AAS....? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Well we don't agree here, which in itself makes it worth to add this subject > to our agenda for the new laws. > I've snipped everything, and want to add a few comments. Of course the bidding of 7NT is just an example, but I have seen it happen as a joke. I always tell the players that one side should make the same calls, the other can bid as they want, but if they bid differently, the board is cancelled and they get 60% (I don't use the words A+ to players). Some players actually laughingly take out the 7NT card, but most continue to play on. I don't believe it is worth discussing the 7NT bid as a psyche. It is just a clear expression of players not wanting to play the board. I don't agree with David when he says that people should not be doing this in order to get to the bar. Having a rest period, a drink, and 60% to boot, can be a valid bridge reason, regardless of the opponents. There are two other points that the Lawmakers must consider : a) should we allow NOS the chance to take A+ b) if we don't, can we stop them I'll start with b first. The 7NT bid is clear, and we could rule against it if we wished. But what about the 2H bid in the original, or the 1H. Or 3H ? Or even pass ? A player might simply try the second bid in his arsenal - he might even have an agreement with partner that he shall always use the second bid, and so on .. Changing this law to disallow this will only lead to more problems. Now on to a). What's so terrible with giving a player the opportunity to cancel a board. For whatever reason. As I said, they do have a reason. "my opponents know that not only I would choose this bid, but also somebody else. They have an advantage and I don't want this". Really, I would prefer it if the law were changed so that, once a bidding starts, the players that are actually at the table, should finish a board. After all, that is what the law states when the bidding it over, so why not do it sooner ? Or at least give the TD the option to do one or the other. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 03:56:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GHtan27934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:55:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow029o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GHtTt27889 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:55:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:02 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c10e20$43262440$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:46 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I must say I am entirely with Grattan here When the learned gentlemen and ladies who converse here spend 3 days trying to find what Law some poor unfortunate player has breached I think you are being bullies Brian told us originally "As per law 15C, you seat the correct pair, and inform the pairs that if the auction differs in any way, the board will be cancelled. South repeats his pass, but this time West opens with a vulnerable bid of 7NT! " No mention there of public flogging / execution / disciplinary penalty if you dare to open 7NT and get the board cancelled At the very least if you want to rule this way you've got to tell the poor chap first (Law 10C.1?) if not TD error I feel has crept in Come on chaps - lighten up - put away your shocked and pained expressions - poor old West was satisfied with his 60% - so Ok he went against the Lawmakers intentions - but as we've said before if you intend a Law you should write it down and put it in the Law Book - keeping it a secret to be revealed when some poor West transgresses is a tad unfair I'm not sure how practical this Law is in many situations. Here in EBU tornaments the majority of players play slightly different systems from one another - prepared Club with 1+ 2+ 3+ Clubs - 5 card majors, 5 card Spades, 12-14 NT 13-15 NT 14-16 NT 15-17 NT, Weak Twos 0-7, 3-8, 5-9, 6-10, some with 5 cards, some 5/6, some 6 some Lucas Twos - all of these differences may make the same opening - eg 1H not necessarily the same at all PS I appeal the disciplinary penalty imposed by the nice man from Florida mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > Grattan Endicott 'Passione interdum movemur:et zelum putamus.' > ~ Thomas a Kempis > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:05 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > > . > > > > So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is > > that to open 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 > > unless it is done to maximise the player's chances of > > winning the event. If it is a breach of L74A2 I hit him > > with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it > > is acceptable in the circumstances. > > > > The ACBL has a regulation that you must do your best > > to win *each board*. I considered the effect of this on > > this decision, and I think it just strengthens what I said: > > if a player opens 7NT so as to get to the bar, he has not > > tried to win that board, and is in breach of the ACBL > > reg. If he believes it enhances his chances on the > > board then it is legal under that reg. > > > +=+ So that if a player considers that a guaranteed 60% > maximises his chances of winning the event you find the > action acceptable. By which door did we come in here? > Was I wrong to suspect that the player was making > exactly that judgement? > The WBF General Regulations require that players > shall play to win at all times, and tie this to the aim of > a winning session score; the ACBL's regulation is more > tightly linked to the particular board. It is not all that > clear, however, that a free option of 60% on a board > does not meet such aims. We are talking more about > continuing to "play bridge", a concept aired at times > in appeals committees but not, to the best of my > recollection, stated in the laws nor enshrined, for the > most part, in regulations. And not easily defined if > it does not simply mean playing the game within its > rules but refers instead subjectively to some quality > of propriety. > We need a solution, obviously, but not something > contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by > outraged emotions. I also suggest it is not a desirable > principle to have the Director imposing his choice of > action on a player who has violated no law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:03:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJ2I321470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:02:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GJ2At21432 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:02:11 +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 PAA10273 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:08:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107161908.PAA10273@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <003201c10af0$87f9ac00$9de31e3e@mikeamos> <00b701c10af3$45f13190$1d13f7a5@james> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:08:07 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 14 July 2001 at 2:32, David Stevenson wrote: >Ed Reppert writes >>David Stevenson asks: >> >>>Now that *is* interesting. ACBL alerting is usually efficient rather >>>than memorable, but you are saying that over a Strong Club, where it is >>>completely standard for 2C to show clubs, that an artificial 2C does not >>>require an alert? >>Well, if you go by what the CC shows, there are four lines under >>"DIRECT CUEBID". The first three are labelled "natural", "strong >>T/O", and "Michaels". [...] >>On that basis, I'd have to say: >> >>Natural cuebids of natural suit opening are alertable. *No* other >>direct cuebid is alertable. > > That's fine, and easy enough to understand, and reasonable. But it >has no relevance to a Precision Club. I bet that players who have a >defence to Precision Club at all do not put it in that part of the CC. > http://www.adamcon.org/~mdfarebr/bridge/Kontrast/K2.png :-) (www.farebrother.cx seems to be shaky for the moment, as part of the Planet Three .bombing; as soon as I can, I'm going to change DNS server. The above is the "non-redirected" location of my web page) And there's a section of boxes (as Ed wrote) for "Artif. Bids". I would assume that a Precision Club comes under that heading; I therefore think it has a fair bit of relevance. If I have a bid that sounds like it belongs somewhere, even if it really doesn't, I put it in the appropriate place. Having been almost burned twice: 1. The only appeal I've been involved in was after the auction 1C-(2D)... Partner opened 1C. Later in the auction, LHO showed hearts, I asked about heart stoppers, and we played in 3NT. At the end of the auction, "Failure to Alert" - 2D was Michaels. I *had* looked at their CC. They claimed I shouldn't have redress because it was clearly marked on their CC - in the *Direct Cuebid* section (it's Michaels, so it's a cuebid, right?) that 2D is Michaels over any minor opening. Needless to say, I had only looked at their "Jump overcall" section. The OS got ruled against and Appealed. See .sig for the result of that Appeal :-) 2. In the GNTB District finals, the auction went p-p-1D-p; 3C! ... Because the information was printed in "Other conventional calls" that this is a Fit Jump (by passed hand), rather than in the Minor Opening (where it said j/s in om constructive raise in the appropriate spot - true if I was an unpassed hand), a lot of talking was done with the TD and the opponents. (Now, in my normal card, FJS/PH+Comp is in the Major and Minor openings as well as the "other conventional calls"). I will leave discussion of the ACBL CC to another thread :-). Also - there are several in the club I play at that would assume (1C)(Precision)-2C is Michaels. They simply have never thought about why a strong club may be different than a natural (or a "could be short") club. Of course, most of those play 1S-4C as Gerber and 1S-4NT as Blackwood... Not that I'm decrying the "Nuttin' Defence". It's very useful, and I've been known to play it myself. But there's a difference between knowing you're treating this bid as natural, and not knowing why you may not want to. Michael. -- "So, I bid 3H, looking for heart stoppers for NT" "...Thus proving that there is at least one person at the table who knows how to play bridge." -- MDF and AC member, St. Thomas Sectional, 1996(?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:14:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJE5e25562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:14:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GJDwt25524 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:13:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA10556 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:19:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107161919.PAA10556@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] lost subject Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000901c10dc4$9f8db560$ca62063e@dodona> References: <4eoZ73BpSiU7EwT$@asimere.com> <000901c10dc4$9f8db560$ca62063e@dodona> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:19:56 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 July 2001 at 7:57, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >From: John (MadDog) Probst >> In article <006701c10ca5$76fe50c0$e5377bd5@dodona>, Grattan Endicott >> writes >> >> >>> [Grattan's ruling] >> >> I agree with Grattan. Wow! Grattan, you must be slipping. There must be some mistake. >> >+=+ There is, of course, a problem Ah, I see you realized it too. Michael (QOOC - quoting out of context - for fun and profit). -- >From what I've seen, I would guess that playing with John [Probst] automatically makes EHAA regardless of what system you're playing -- Adam Beneschan, in r.g.b. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:27:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJRXu00096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:27:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GJRMt00035 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:27:22 +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 PAA10813 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107161933.PAA10813@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <005201c10dcd$9de26040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> <005201c10dcd$9de26040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:33:24 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 July 2001 at 0:54, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson > >>To review, a player sits down and is told that the board was started >>before, and if the bidding is the same will continue, but will be >>cancelled if the bidding is different. The oppos, who have played the >>board once part-way are instructed to bid the same. > >>First of all, there was a suggestion that this pair not be told this. > >Not "this pair," but the new E/W pair (or individual) mentioned in >the first sentence. Of course N/S have to be told that they must bid >the same as before, and that if E/W bid differently the board will be >cancelled. > So, if E/W are knowledgeable in the Laws, they have an advantage that another pair lacks? You, or I, or anybone on BLML would know this; but the pair following me, doesn't...and an, arguably, legal option has been made unavaailable to them. As has, of course, the information relating to the fact that the Director lets the auction proceed (if she does or can). >>That is illegal under L9B2. TDs tell players rulings. > >I think this applies to players who are involved in an irregularity, >either as the OS or the NOS. The new E/W were not so involved, and >don't have to be told anything other than to sit down and play bridge. > Luckily, the Laws say otherwise. L15C: "the Director...shall...ensure that the correct contestants are seated *and that they are informed of their rights*" (my emphasis). You can't just tell N/S what's going to happen and leave E/W (the correct E/W) in the dark. We may believe that the bailout option is one that E/W should not have. The answer, as many have stated, is to make it clear - by changing the Laws to reflect it (or at least a WBFLC interpretation). Not to fudge the Laws to "make" it illegal. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:31:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJUuU01293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:30:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GJUht01232 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:30:44 +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 15ME2T-000B98-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:28:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:47:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> <005201c10dcd$9de26040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005201c10dcd$9de26040$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 > >>To review, a player sits down and is told that the board was started >>before, and if the bidding is the same will continue, but will be >>cancelled if the bidding is different. The oppos, who have played the >>board once part-way are instructed to bid the same. > >>First of all, there was a suggestion that this pair not be told this. > >Not "this pair," but the new E/W pair (or individual) mentioned in >the first sentence. Of course N/S have to be told that they must bid >the same as before, and that if E/W bid differently the board will be >cancelled. > >>That is illegal under L9B2. TDs tell players rulings. > >I think this applies to players who are involved in an irregularity, >either as the OS or the NOS. The new E/W were not so involved, and >don't have to be told anything other than to sit down and play bridge. > >They probably won't know that some bidding occurred previously, and >it's best that they are not told. It's none of their business, and >they have no legitimate need to know. Of course it is their business. It is a ruling being given about that board at that table, and they must be told under the Law. -- 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 Jul 17 05:31:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJUvB01300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:30:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GJUit01243 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:30:45 +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 15ME2T-000B9B-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:28:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:49:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> <000601c10dd0$0f186460$5c5c063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000601c10dd0$0f186460$5c5c063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott'Passione interdum movemur:et zelum putamus.' > ~ Thomas a Kempis > + + + + >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:05 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > >. >> >> So, in my view, the answer to the original question, is >> that to open 7NT on the hand is a breach of L74A2 >> unless it is done to maximise the player's chances of >> winning the event. If it is a breach of L74A2 I hit him >> with a penalty: if not then I explain to the oppos why it >> is acceptable in the circumstances. >> >> The ACBL has a regulation that you must do your best >> to win *each board*. I considered the effect of this on >> this decision, and I think it just strengthens what I said: >> if a player opens 7NT so as to get to the bar, he has not >> tried to win that board, and is in breach of the ACBL >> reg. If he believes it enhances his chances on the >> board then it is legal under that reg. >> >+=+ So that if a player considers that a guaranteed 60% >maximises his chances of winning the event you find the >action acceptable. By which door did we come in here? >Was I wrong to suspect that the player was making >exactly that judgement? > The WBF General Regulations require that players >shall play to win at all times, and tie this to the aim of >a winning session score; the ACBL's regulation is more >tightly linked to the particular board. It is not all that >clear, however, that a free option of 60% on a board >does not meet such aims. We are talking more about >continuing to "play bridge", a concept aired at times >in appeals committees but not, to the best of my >recollection, stated in the laws nor enshrined, for the >most part, in regulations. And not easily defined if >it does not simply mean playing the game within its >rules but refers instead subjectively to some quality >of propriety. > We need a solution, obviously, but not something >contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by >outraged emotions. I also suggest it is not a desirable >principle to have the Director imposing his choice of >action on a player who has violated no law. I agree. That is why we penalise him for a breach of L74A2. It is nothing to do with outraged emotions: the Director has no right to ignore L74A2. -- 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 Jul 17 05:31:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJV5s01334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:31:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GJUit01242 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:30:45 +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 15ME2T-000B9C-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:28:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:58:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <003401c10de4$a59b2f80$9de31e3e@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <003401c10de4$a59b2f80$9de31e3e@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike amos writes >I must say I am entirely with Grattan here > >When the learned gentlemen and ladies who converse here spend 3 days trying >to find what Law some poor unfortunate player has breached I think you are >being bullies What is special about three days? I am often told I jump in too early. Having already given an answer by email I sat back for three days, saw nothing to convince me otherwise, and then wrote my first article in which I quoted what I had said in my email which includes the law number. I do not see it as bullying to apply a Law. -- 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 Jul 17 05:36:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJa0j02971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:36:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GJZrt02936 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:35:54 +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 f6GJXOF56600 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716152441.00aef9c0@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, 16 Jul 2001 15:34:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <200107161430.KAA03045@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 10:30 AM 7/16/01, Steve wrote: >The ACBL's "Duplicate Decisions" says the score is usually avg+ to >both pairs but goes on to say: > The Director should give a warning to the NS or stationary pair who > did not check the opponents' pair number to verify that the proper > pair was playing the round. If the Director has previously warned > the pair or feels the pair has been particularly negligent, he could > award an outside procedural penalty of 1/4 of a board. > >I think this implies that NS have a duty to check the EW pair, but they >are not necessarily expected to be aware of their duty. I could conceivably accept this for the N-S pair, although it certainly seems to me that N-S are required to check the number of the E-W pair, not because of some general obligation to the conditions of contest, as has been suggested, but rather as a direct consequence of the obligation to enter the scores, which requires this specific piece of information. But "usually avg+" to the E-W pair who actually sat down at the wrong table!? Is this really ACBL policy? 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 Jul 17 05:38:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJccZ03855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:38:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web5501.mail.yahoo.com (web5501.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.106.184]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6GJcWt03828 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:38:32 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.194.129.226] by web5501.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:36:07 PDT Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:36:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Tu Subject: [BLML] K-S alerting question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) (1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required (2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or 4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough to warrant an alert of the pass? Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly damaging? ===== Stephen Tu stephtu@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:45:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJjbx06162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:45:37 +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 (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GJjUt06126 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:45:31 +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 PAA11139 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:51:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107161951.PAA11139@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Wandering Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <005501c10dce$2b9b32e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200107141605.JAA24541@emerald.oz.net> <005501c10dce$2b9b32e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:51:31 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 July 2001 at 1:05, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >I read something a while back about a new ACBL regulation saying that >players will not be allowed to wander about the playing room with no >apparent purpose. Nothing seems to have come of it, judging by what I saw at >the Kansas City NABC this spring. > >Going for a drink of water seems to be popular. Is it really necessary to >have more than three glasses of water, one to start and one at each break? Umm, yes. I average 7. It's good for me, and it gives me something to fidget with. I am allowed to do what I need to minimize *the appearance* of nervousness - and I happen to like water. I don't, however, go up every round; if I don't have time, I don't go. When I do have time, I get 2 glasses :-). However, I never leave the room (well, almost never), and I never hold up play more than 30 seconds (if I happen to pick the worst time, and the round gets called as I'm at the water). I do try to take the most obviously unuseful route, however. I also do something that I (and not everyone) can do when going up for water - I take my glasses off. Yes, "the world becomes an impressionist painting" (Mike Neun), but I can see shapes (i.e. tables, players, etc), but in order to see cards, I'd have to be between the players and the table. No, I can't prove that, except to an optometrist (20/600 approx before correction), but if anybody asks, I'll let them wear my glasses for long enough for them to get a headache, and tell people what they see :-). For me, it's not enough to be not cheating; it has to look *to me* that I'm doing everything I can to not cheat. (Note this only applies to my opinion of *my* behaviour). >Ivan Erdos used to get a drink after every round. Perhaps the water coolers >should not be placed close to tables in play, as they were in KC. > Why? It's not as if water drinking is harmful to others, as smoking is. And it gives smokers something to do with their hands, too. >Many smokers are going outside at times other than breaks. This is really >bad, because they often don't get back on time. I'd say don't allow it, but >one hates to see people suffer. However, if a smoker starts noticeably >rushing me during the play, that has the effect of slowing my play >considerably. > I can see this. I try to be as considerate as I can to smokers, as they are out of my range when they do light up. I would not "slow down", but I work very hard to play at my tempo, same as anyone else who tries to make me play at their fast pace. Note that my tempo is still sufficient to finish rounds early enough to get water 6/12 rounds :-). And I get really annoyed if I am expected to catch up for the smoker who came in 3 minutes late for a 15-minute round (yet another reason I hate 2-board rounds). >I often see large areas of unused space in the big playing rooms at >NABCs. Would it not be a good idea to put a wider aisle between sections >and ask players to use it when they have to go somewhere? > This would be a very good idea. I often have trouble getting from place to place. However, it's a bit rough trying to work out what will be used and what won't when selling. Apart from taking whole sections out of "what's being sold", that is. See you in Toronto, either at the table or between sessions :-). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:47:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJlYD06777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:47:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com ([147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GJlRt06749 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:47:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA05650; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:44:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Stephen Tu" , Subject: RE: [BLML] K-S alerting question Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:47:06 -0400 Message-ID: <023d01c10e30$18160580$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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Passing a semi-forcing NT with a 4333 hand is in no way unusual. I do not believe that an alert is necessary. However, if you do believe that you should be providing the opponents with more complete information about the system, you should be pre-alerting the initial 1H opening. Passing the semi-forcing NT is subsequent to the weirdness. Richard > > On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate > on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping > some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, > and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > > KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. > The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) > (1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required > (2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or > 4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, > or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > > Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough > to warrant an alert of the pass? > Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly > damaging? > > ===== > Stephen Tu > stephtu@yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail > http://personal.mail.yahoo.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/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO1NEurFdMFbo8dHHEQK4bACfaWXaCVM1kvsb0ALLpGprOdDndRkAoOv4 RVcC0cDn7cWVJMOKEijJL56J =imUk -----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 Jul 17 05:49:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJnEQ07326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:49:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GJn3t07266 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:49:03 +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 PAA11213 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:55:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107161955.PAA11213@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:55:00 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 July 2001 at 9:23, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > >I don't often say this but I completely agree with David. I just want to >offer another reason why a player may not want to risk playing the board. >Not knowing how much of the auction took place at the other table I may be >concerned that although the calls are the same the tempo differs. My >opponents will be aware of this but we will not. Perhaps the other pair >made a revealing tempo break that my own partnership would avoid. Or, perhaps, the sitting pair don't make a revealing tempo break this time (because they "must repeat their calls") that they made last time. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 05:58:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GJwb710482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:58:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GJwTt10447 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:58:30 +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 QAA11356 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107162004.QAA11356@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:04:28 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 July 2001 at 10:50, "Kooijman, A." wrote: > >considerations might even lead to the conclusion that L15 should be >rephrased. >Why did I desperately look for a law to make my approach legal? Let us just >read L12C and use the fact that we told the players to proceed normally etc. >(and we know that normally includes careless, inferior but not irrational No it doesn't. It doesn't at all. I don't see L15 in "Laws 69, 70, and 71". Normal is defined *specifically for those three Laws* in every instance of that dreaded footnote in my copy of the Laws. If you wish to extend this to L15 or, in fact, to any ohter section of the FLB, fine; that is your committee's prerogative; but currently "normally" means "normally" unless we're talking about a claim. I notice that 4 replies into this thread, I haven't actually stated my position on the problem. Hmm - sounds like it's going to be 5. Have I said recently how much I appreciate people in official positions offering their opinions (yes, I do remember they are simply personal opinions) on BLML? Especially when they know that at least one not-so-worthy will disagree with them? Thanks for giving me a vision of the reasoning behind the Laws of the game I love. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 06:16:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GKFMa14205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:15:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GKFFt14201 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:15:16 +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 QAA11640 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:21:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107162021.QAA11640@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:21:04 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 July 2001 at 10:13, "David Kent" wrote: > >The biggest problem I see with not allowing the 'irrational' bid of 7NT is >that auctions which are identical may mean different things. For example, >the first West player to play the board may be playing Magic Diamond and >opens 1S (showing an unbal 8-12 with 4+S). The problem of the incorrect >pair comes to light at thatpoint. When the correct pair comes to the table >the West player playing Standard American opens 1S with a 5-2-4-2 12 HCP >hand. > >Clearly this is a huge advantage to the N-S partnership. Should the NO West >have to understand the bidding system and its nuances of the pair who >incorrectly started the board? Even playing essentially the same system, >there will be minor differences in style, valuation etc that could give more >information to N-S. > Well, it could be a huge advantage to the E-W pair, too. Say this happened, and the TD (correctly) seats Eric Landau and me at the table. The auction starts with South's pass, and Eric opens 2H. The director says "please continue" and wanders off. Am I allowed to use the information that Eric's hand is almost certainly also a Standard American 2H opener? I.e. that it's more likely to look like xx KQxxxx Kxxx x than AQxx 87432 xx xx or x QJTxxxx AKx x? Michael. -- 23. If something strange is going on, double the Israeli. -Jeff Goldsmith's Imperious Rules of Bridge -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 06:21:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GKKnk14222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:20:49 +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 f6GKKht14217 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:20:44 +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 QAA14769 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA03586 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:18:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:18:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107162018.QAA03586@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > But "usually avg+" to the E-W pair who actually sat down at the wrong > table!? Is this really ACBL policy? No, of course not. You don't assign the EW who caused the problem _any_ score for the board they weren't supposed to play. You can give them a PP (and often would), and if they were supposed to play the board later (and cannot), I'm sure you would assign avg- for that. It's the EW who should have played the board but couldn't who get 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 Tue Jul 17 06:34:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GKXnc14242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:33:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GKXht14238 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:33:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6GKTm116487 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:29:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3B517367.37D990C1@village.uunet.be> References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B517367.37D990C1@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:23:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:41 PM +0200 7/15/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >No I don't agree with this. Sorry to hear it. :-) >I believe the player should have the right to not play the >board at all. There is, iirc, a law in the book somewhere about a player having the option not to play a board. I don't believe that law (or any similar one) applies to this case. >"differs in any way". It's a different person making the >call - that is a difference. Pfui. Or, as DWS said to me recently , pshaw. If the lawmakers had intended this difference to matter, there wouldn't *be* a law 15C. > I don't want a director to >have to judge if my bid is the same as someone else's. 1S is 1S - and that is all the law is concerned with. >I may accept to play - and most people do come to play - but >I should not be forced to do so, and I don't believe that >the laws force me to do so. Well, we disagree then. Again. :-) 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/AwUBO1NPE72UW3au93vOEQKz7wCfRUM6VpLLjIPXcLLKwpzTCCwCoNoAoPUu wNcUYws+r3WzOSgLTRbrDbby =yacy -----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 Jul 17 06:54:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GKrbF14272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:53:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GKrVt14268 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:53:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6GKnlW17714 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107161540.LAA03152@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200107161540.LAA03152@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:44:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:40 AM -0400 7/16/01, Steve Willner wrote: >Don't overlook "differs in any way." If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not say 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/AwUBO1NTuL2UW3au93vOEQIq0QCfey207/1xYS9sudGMNQRUjFGy9zwAoJsy uQPPB3eOBPenBeGsF7JGsYKc =CffO -----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 Jul 17 07:09:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GL98j14300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:09:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GL8wt14296 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:08:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 9572B2A5197; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 5F3E52A5199 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18979 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2001 21:06:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO m) (213.76.37.138) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 16 Jul 2001 21:06:21 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:04:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Reply-To: cibor@interia.pl X-Mailer: Opera 5.01 build 840 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Footer: Message-Id: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> X-EMID: 9f667138 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote >And he doesn't have to open 7NT. You may recall Larry Cohen's >case from Lille. He opened 1H on a 10 count and a 4 card major. >THe system bid in his case (light opens, big club) but fairly >likely to be a different choice than what was opened at the other table. > >Would you (in this case the people who believe that opening 7NT >here is wrong) tell say Zia that he couldn't open one of his weird >1NT (on a different hand of course)? On what basis? And if Zia can >do this, why can't I? Here is the relevant fragment from the "Bridge World" (I'99, "Losing At Lille"). +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ A few more flat boards followed. Then Bobby Levin and Brad Moss arrived at the table with a director in tow. The movement was a modified scrambled Mitchell (every pair would play every other pair) and Levin-Moss had started the deal at the wrong table. The director informed us to begin the auction but if any call deviated from what Levin-Moss had already seen then we'd get an above average-plus and they'd get average minus. This seemed ridiculous but we had no choice except to proceed as ordered. I picked up K95 AJ109 7 Q10764 It went two passes to me and I knew I could open (say) 7NT and receive an average-plus. I supposes that's against the spirit of the game but that what would Edgar have said, I wonder [perhaps that, in the context of this foolish procedure, the Director was at fault in not instructing that participants to take normal actions - Ed]. I guessed to open 1H (we play a strong club so my choices were limited) and the director stopped the auction; I had drawn a winning ticket. I never found out what Levin-Moss's other opponent had done with my cards. This "skipped deal" was a harbinger of weird things to come. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ My personal view is the relevant law is ridiculous for the reason given by Cohen; I can see the intention (as I can see the intention behind the L25) but I still regard these Laws as monsters. Some time ago I posted a Kees Tammens' case who deliberately lost a match to qualify to the next stage of the Dutch trials. I share his opinion that the lawmakers are far too careless about the laws and regulation they create. It's interesting that very often these lawmakers are first who punish players who try to take advantage of these laws *in their best interest*. I am astonished that anyone would want to punish the player who simply did his best to win the tournament *according to the rules*. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A--------------- Wytrop w Internecie cyfrowy aparat fotograficzny! Szukaj pod adresem: http://tropiciel.interia.pl/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 07:23:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GLMpc14343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:22:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GLMjt14339 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:22:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6GLKJE03893 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:20:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107162120.f6GLKJE03893@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:20:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 16, 2001 04:44:03 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 Ed Reppert writes: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 11:40 AM -0400 7/16/01, Steve Willner wrote: > >Don't overlook "differs in any way." > > If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* > of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not > say so? Imperfections in the persons writing the laws. It's *hard* to write laws that are perfectly clear and anticipate all circumstances. Think about the intent behind the Law. Here it's quite clear that the intent is that the OS should not have any information beyond what's provided by the calls made at the new table. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 07:25:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GLPRu14374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:25:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GLPLt14370 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:25:22 +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 RAA19631 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:22:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA03715 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:22:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107162122.RAA03715@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > >Don't overlook "differs in any way." > > If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* > of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not > say so? My point was that it _does_ say so. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 07:40:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GLdhE14420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:39:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GLdbt14415 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:39:38 +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 f6GLbBT44543 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@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, 16 Jul 2001 17:38:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <200107161540.LAA03152@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 11:40 AM 7/16/01, Steve wrote: > > From: Ron Johnson > > You may recall Larry Cohen's > > case from Lille. He opened 1H on a 10 count and a 4 card major. > > THe system bid in his case (light opens, big club) but fairly > > likely to be a different choice than what was opened at the other > table. > >Don't overlook "differs in any way." Unless the incorrect and correct >pairs are playing much the same system, the same call is likely to have >a different meaning. The ACBL gives the example of 1C artificial, 16+, >versus the usual sort of natural 1C opener. Another poster here gave >the example of "normal" 1S versus "Magic Diamond" 1S. In such blatant >cases, it is obvious to cancel the board, but it may have to be >cancelled even if the difference is more subtle. What about, for >example, 1M opened by both an Acol and a Precision player? Or even K-S >(five cards, can be fairly light) versus 2/1 (five cards, sound >values)? And don't overlook the corresponding passes: the 2/1 bidder >will pass some hands the K-S player would have opened, so the two >passes are not really the same. > >I don't know about Cohen's case, but if the previous player was not a >big clubber, it seems likely that the board was unplayable no matter >what Cohen did. On the other hand, if the two pairs are playing the >same system, there's at least a chance that identical calls will have >the same meaning. That's a very slippery slope. It's often the case that the two calls will have "the same meaning", but never the case that that they will have the absolutely identical meaning. I start a board against the wrong opponents, one of whom, the dealer, opens 1S, at which point the mis-move is noticed. The correct pair sits down, and the TD notes that their CC is identical to the previous pair's. The TD tells us to start a second auction, per L15C. Dealer opens 1S again, at which point the TD walks away. The dealer becomes declarer. Now it is trick 9, and I'm on lead. Who has the key missing honor? Aha! I know this 1S bidder opens very light; I should be worried that he could, on the auction, have as little as 10 HCP. But I also know that the first 1S bidder is a fairly sound opener, so *this time* this declarer will almost certainly have no less than 12 HCP, which would place the key card in his hand. It would seem that the wrong opponents' irregularity has put the correct opponents at a disadvantage. What now? At some level, perhaps an extraordinary deep and subtle one, but some level nevertheless, the test in L15C -- "if any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction" -- can be considered to be redundant; it will always be the case. Recognizing this, we might rewrite L15C along the lines of: "If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated, and apply L16B forthwith." 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 Jul 17 07:58:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GLwR314452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:58:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GLwLt14448 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 07:58:22 +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 f6GLttT45772 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:55:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716174553.00ab5320@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, 16 Jul 2001 17:57:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: References: <000601c10dd0$0f186460$5c5c063e@dodona> <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> <000601c10dd0$0f186460$5c5c063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:49 AM 7/16/01, David wrote: > I agree. That is why we penalise him for a breach of L74A2. > > It is nothing to do with outraged emotions: the Director has no right >to ignore L74A2. Penalize *whom*? Surely if anyone has "cause[d] annoyance... or... interfere[d] with the enjoyment of the game" it is the E-W pair that sat at the wrong table to begin with; if anyone has violated L74A2 it is they, not the correct E-W pair, whose own "enjoyment of the game" would surely be interfered with by being forced to attempt to bid "normally", whatever that means, so as to give the N-S pair an opportunity to play the board with whatever subtle inference might be available to them from the fact that the correct E-W pair had the same auction as the real culprits (as in the example in my previous post), when they do not wish to take such a risk. David's position comes uncomfortably close to interpreting L74A2 so broadly as to give the TD essentially unlimited authority to penalize any action of which he disapproves. 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 Jul 17 08:57:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GMuG714721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:56:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6GMuAt14717 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:56:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP15.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.15]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA29243 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:23 -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, North (dealer) S: J 10 x H: A K 10 x x D: K x C: A x x West East S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x H: Q x x H: ----- D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x C: x x x C: Q 10 South S: x x H: J x x x x D: J K: K J x x x All vul. the auction was: N E S W 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) P 4S All P The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. 4S made (2C and 1 D). When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. He lost his first appeal.... I told him I would have rule like him: 1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal break after a jump). 2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). 3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. 4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. Your opinion would be welcome. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 09:20:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6GNK8A14762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:20:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6GNK3t14758 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:20:03 +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 QAA30117; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:17:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200107162317.QAA30117@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:53:23 EDT." Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:17:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East > S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x > H: Q x x H: ----- > D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x > C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > > All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > > The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction > continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. > 4S made (2C and 1 D). > > When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). > N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > > The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. > He lost his first appeal.... > > I told him I would have rule like him: > 1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). > 2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). > 3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. > 4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > > Your opinion would be welcome. I agree with you and the TD. What was the AC's reasoning for letting the score stand? Did you get that information? If East had started with a 2D overcall and then bid 4S over 4H, I'd be more willing to accept that pass might not be a logical alternative (depending, perhaps, on the vulnerability and form of scoring). But rebidding a suit in which you have 5, with no support from partner (other than the "support" provided by the hesitation), looks awfully suspicious. I also think that, from East's point of view, the hesitation tends to indicate that West is thinking about supporting spades. Some might argue that West might have been thinking about doubling---but that's a lot less likely in this auction, IMHO. Other possible actions that West might have been thinking about are even more remote. If you're going to rule for N-S, one could make a case for giving them an overtrick; ineffective defense could allow N-S to run clubs before E-W get their two spade tricks. -- 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 Jul 17 10:13:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H0Bs817298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:11:54 +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 f6H0Bkt17256 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:11:47 +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 BAA66496 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:09:15 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:09:43 +0100 Message-ID: <01C10E5D.299EB9A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:09:42 +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 Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East > S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x > H: Q x x H: ----- > D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x > C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > > All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > > The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction > continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. > 4S made (2C and 1 D). > > When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). > N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > > The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. > He lost his first appeal.... > Your student TD did well. This seems like a routine 'bread and butter' ruling. The AC must have learned some new information! 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 Tue Jul 17 10:27:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H0QjL22612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:26:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H0Qdt22579 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:26:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-23.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.23]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6H0NxP20265; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:23:59 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000201c10e56$fb0d1740$1751063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <4eoZ73BpSiU7EwT$@asimere.com> <000901c10dc4$9f8db560$ca62063e@dodona> <200107161919.PAA10556@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] lost subject Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:26:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] lost subject > On 16 July 2001 at 7:57, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > >> In article < Grattan Endicott > >> writes > >> >> > >>> [Grattan's ruling] > >> > >> I agree with Grattan. Wow! > > Grattan, you must be slipping. There must be some mistake. > >> > >+=+ There is, of course, a problem > > Ah, I see you realized it too. > > Michael (QOOC - quoting out of context - for fun and profit). > +=+ I worry when people start agreeing with me. It increases the chances that I am wrong. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 10:27:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H0RCH22759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:27:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H0R5t22723 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:27:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-23.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.23]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6H0O2P20305; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:24:02 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000301c10e56$fcaf2e80$1751063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com><000601c10dd0$0f186460$5c5c063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:29:13 +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: Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > We need a solution, obviously, but not something > >contrived out of desperation to find one, driven by > >outraged emotions. I also suggest it is not a desirable > >principle to have the Director imposing his choice of > >action on a player who has violated no law. > > I agree. That is why we penalise him for a breach > of L74A2. > > It is nothing to do with outraged emotions: the > Director has no right to ignore L74A2. > +=+ At which point as ever the circle of debate is complete. As I said some time ago it is a remarkable argument that suggests the making of a legal call to be a source, within the intentions of 74A2, of 'annoyance or embarrassment to another player'. The Director could use this same approach to ban psyching, to remedy for opponents the effects of "convention disruption", to disallow preemptive openers on pathetic suits, and much else. Struggles to find something other than the procedure ordained in Law 15C, to deal with a player's lawful but repugnant choice of call where 15C applies, are not dispassionate; the Director should be instructed to set aside his feelings and apply the relevant Law 15C dutifully and without demur. That it might be desirable to amend the Law is another matter. ~ 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 Jul 17 10:44:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H0ieO28838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:44:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H0iYt28808 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:44:34 +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 f6H0hBa24510 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008e01c10e59$40355600$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> <005201c10dcd$9de26040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <200107161933.PAA10813@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:38:36 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Farebrother" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > >>That is illegal under L9B2. TDs tell players rulings. > > > >I think this applies to players who are involved in an irregularity, > >either as the OS or the NOS. The new E/W were not so involved, and > >don't have to be told anything other than to sit down and play bridge. > > > Luckily, the Laws say otherwise. I was addressing what David said in regard to L9B2, which surely doesn't apply to someone who has not been involved in an infraction. > L15C: "the Director...shall...ensure > that the correct contestants are seated *and that they are informed of > their rights*" (my emphasis). You can't just tell N/S what's going to > happen and leave E/W (the correct E/W) in the dark. Oh, all right, but "A and B" doesn't necessarily "A, then B", or that the same words need to be said to both sides. Before E/W come to the table I tell N/S that they must bid exactly the same as before, and that the board will be cancelled if E/W bid differently. To E/W: "Just because another pair mistakenly started to play your hands doesn't necessarily mean you cannot play them. Please sit down and play the board, while I stand by to protect you from any damage. I will be very unhappy if you try to take advantage of the situation." There, that's their rights. I don't feel I am obligated to tell E/W that they can get an avg+ by making sure previous E/W bids aren't duplicated. What are they going to do? Appeal when they found out they could have done so? AC: "How were you damaged?" "I could have bid 7NT and gotten an average-plus instead of the zero I received playing three notrump." > > We may believe that the bailout option is one that E/W should not have. The > answer, as many have stated, is to make it clear - by changing the Laws > to reflect it (or at least a WBFLC interpretation). Not to fudge the > Laws to "make" it illegal. When the lawmakers explicitly delete an option from the Laws, as they did when removing the option for "any player" to cancel the board before it is replayed, it doesn't seem right to interpret the new law as allowing the option by means of a doubtful action. Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 17 11:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H14hZ05921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:04:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H14bt05882 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:04:37 +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 f6H13Ha28100 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009e01c10e5c$0d9911c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:55:06 -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: "Stephen Tu" > On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate > on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping > some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, > and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > > KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. > The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) > (1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required > (2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or > 4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, > or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > > Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough > to warrant an alert of the pass? > Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly > damaging? > The pass should be Alerted if there is any special partnership agreement about it. To me that means anything but a minimum hand with 5-3-3-2 distribution, which would be assumed when playing with a stranger. Some of our California pros are fond of opening third seat in a lead-directing four-card major with very weak hands. The 1NT trump response is Announced as "semi-forcing" (actually not required if the 1NT bidder is a passed hand, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure). However, the only time it is passed is when the pro indeed has a four-card major and a weak hand. Chad or Crystal isn't going to let Jane or John play 1NT otherwise. That makes the pass Alertable. The defense against this ploy is very simple. Don't overcall the opening with 1NT, but wait until the 1NT response comes around and double that (for business, but partner can take out). Hardly anyone employs this S. J. Simon strategy these days, when it seems impossible to double for penalties at a low level. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California (At Toronto NABC July 19-28) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 11:31:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H1UQ113681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:30:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.northrock.bm (mx.northrock.bm [209.27.140.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H1UKt13675 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:30:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from northrock.bm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.northrock.bm (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f6H1Rmr11026; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:27:48 -0300 (ADT) From: "Jack Rhind" Reply-to: jrhind@therock.bm To: "Laval Dubreuil" , Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:27:49 AST Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.0p, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3b539495.2aee.0@northrock.bm> X-User-Info: 199.106.219.174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > >Your opinion would be welcome. > >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/ > > Your TD did well here. I see not good reason to overturn his ruling here. Regards, Jack Rhind -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 11:31:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H1Uwu13692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:30:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.northrock.bm (mx.northrock.bm [209.27.140.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H1Umt13687 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:30:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from northrock.bm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.northrock.bm (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f6H1SMr11096; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:28:22 -0300 (ADT) From: "Jack Rhind" Reply-to: jrhind@therock.bm To: "Laval Dubreuil" , Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:28:22 AST Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.0p, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3b5394b6.2aab.0@northrock.bm> X-User-Info: 199.106.219.174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > >Your opinion would be welcome. > >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/ > > Your TD did well here. I see not good reason to overturn his ruling here. Regards, Jack Rhind -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 11:31:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H1UU213685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:30:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx.northrock.bm (mx.northrock.bm [209.27.140.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H1UOt13680 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:30:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from northrock.bm (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.northrock.bm (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f6H1Rnr11030; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:27:51 -0300 (ADT) From: "Jack Rhind" Reply-to: jrhind@therock.bm To: "Laval Dubreuil" , Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:27:52 AST Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) X-Mailer: DMailWeb Web to Mail Gateway 2.0p, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3b539498.2b0f.0@northrock.bm> X-User-Info: 199.106.219.174 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > >Your opinion would be welcome. > >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/ > > Your TD did well here. I see not good reason to overturn his ruling here. Regards, Jack Rhind -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 14:16:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H4BXP21157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:11:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H4BPt21109 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:11:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id EAA25869 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 04:09:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:06:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >ton kooijman wrote: >> >> > >> >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid >> >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to >> >accept to play and he can force this. >> >> Where in the laws do you find that option for West? > I have a problem with this Law. Eric Leong goes to the wrong table and bids 1 spade. The mistake is discovered and he goes away, and I arrive and bid 1 spade (playing with Gordon). The board is clearly unplayable at this point. I open about two and a half points lighter than Eric. Since my call is the first in the auction and the auction completes, then Gordon *knows* I'm about 13-15, not 10-15. This *is* a different auction. I might just as well open 7NT. -- 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 Jul 17 14:25:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H4MDW24895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:22:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H4M6t24860 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:22:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id EAA25899 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 04:19:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:16:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L82C Directors Error References: <200107161009.LAA09722@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200107161009.LAA09722@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 <200107161009.LAA09722@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > > W N E S > 1H P 1S > P 1NT P 3D > P* 3NT End > >*At this point, South says she meant to bid 2D. >The TD is called, determines that South spoke as >soon as she had seen what bid she had put down, >but rules that it is too late to change her call. > >3NT makes. > >TD talks to colleagues and concludes that he has >given a wrong ruling. The TD and TDic decide they >must give adjusted score(s) under L82C. If South >bids 2D it is possible but not all certain that NS >will reach 3NT. > >L82C calls for adjusted scores treating both sides >as non-offending. L12C2 calls for the most favourable >result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. > >What is "the irregularity" in this case? > >Were we right to assign NS 3NT= because they were not >damaged by the director's error? I'd rule 3N= NS and 2D+1(or whatever) EW > >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 Jul 17 14:29:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H4QtB26076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:26:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H4Qnt26072 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:26:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id EAA25903 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 04:24:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:21:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question References: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> <009e01c10e5c$0d9911c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009e01c10e5c$0d9911c0$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 <009e01c10e5c$0d9911c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Stephen Tu" > >> On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate >> on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping >> some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, >> and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. >> >> KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. >> The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) >> (1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required >> (2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or >> 4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, >> or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. >> >> Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough >> to warrant an alert of the pass? >> Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly >> damaging? >> >The pass should be Alerted if there is any special partnership agreement >about it. To me that means anything but a minimum hand with 5-3-3-2 >distribution, which would be assumed when playing with a stranger. > >Some of our California pros are fond of opening third seat in a >lead-directing four-card major with very weak hands. The 1NT trump response >is Announced as "semi-forcing" (actually not required if the 1NT bidder is a >passed hand, according to the ACBL Alert Procedure). However, the only time >it is passed is when the pro indeed has a four-card major and a weak hand. >Chad or Crystal isn't going to let Jane or John play 1NT otherwise. That >makes the pass Alertable. > >The defense against this ploy is very simple. Don't overcall the opening >with 1NT, but wait until the 1NT response comes around and double that (for >business, but partner can take out). Hardly anyone employs this S. J. Simon >strategy these days, when it seems impossible to double for penalties at a >low level. I collected 800 at GBP5-00/100 this evening on a very similar auction. We didn't even have game. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California >(At Toronto NABC July 19-28) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 14:31:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H4Stt26083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:28:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H4Snt26079 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:28:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id EAA25907 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 04:26:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 05:23:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) 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 BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > >Your opinion would be welcome. > 4H making, no hesitation. -- 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 Jul 17 14:44:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H4hlp26120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:43:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H4hft26116 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:43:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaugs1.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.67.129]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA29692 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:41:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:40:59 -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: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Rik Terveen" ; "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > > A recent AC in which I sat went one step farther (too far ?) : we applied a > small PP to a player who admitted he realized quite quickly his misbisd, > and did not correct it. Although there is no obligation to correct, we knew > he knew he could, and we felt he could well have declined it on purpose, to > create the ensuing imbroglio (knowing the guy). Ask Herman for details. > Getting caught up on e-mail, I just noticed this. A player received a PP for a completely legal bid, because he did not change it when he realized it was inadvertent? Oh well, I guess the theme goes well with the thread on opting for an AAS. It seems that even legal calls are subject to penalty these days, as long as a TD or AC feels our intentions were impure. 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 Jul 17 15:46:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H5jXh27986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H5jRt27982 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:45:27 +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 f6H5i5a21508 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b101c10e83$49769f60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107141605.JAA24541@emerald.oz.net> <005501c10dce$2b9b32e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <200107161951.PAA11139@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wandering Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:37:27 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Farebrother" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > I also do something that I (and not everyone) can do when going up for > water - I take my glasses off. Excellent idea, I am going to do the same, holding the glasses in my hand when I necessarily have to visit the john at other than break times. I don't drink water much. Water is for washing, not drinking. > > >Ivan Erdos used to get a drink after every round. Perhaps the water coolers > >should not be placed close to tables in play, as they were in KC. > > > Why? It's not as if water drinking is harmful to others, as smoking is. > And it gives smokers something to do with their hands, too. I didn't mean that they should be placed far away. Just more than the few feet one sometimes sees. Alternatively, don't place tables right up close to the water coolers. > > >Many smokers are going outside at times other than breaks. This is really > >bad, because they often don't get back on time. I'd say don't allow it, but > >one hates to see people suffer. However, if a smoker starts noticeably > >rushing me during the play, that has the effect of slowing my play > >considerably. > > > >I often see large areas of unused space in the big playing rooms at > >NABCs. Would it not be a good idea to put a wider aisle between sections > >and ask players to use it when they have to go somewhere? > > > This would be a very good idea. I often have trouble getting from place > to place. However, it's a bit rough trying to work out what will be used > and what won't when selling. Apart from taking whole sections out of > "what's being sold", that is. > Understood, but I meant really empty space - no tables. >See you in Toronto, either at the table or between sessions :-). Or maybe at the York Kitchen for breakfast, 10 am Sunday July 22? Marv Marvin L. French 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 Tue Jul 17 16:27:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H6Qwg28052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:26:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H6Qrt28048 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:26:53 +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 f6H6PUa26953 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d001c10e89$130fde40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <023d01c10e30$18160580$7d04e080@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:23:59 -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: "Richard Willey" > > Passing a semi-forcing NT with a 4333 hand is in no way unusual. > > I do not believe that an alert is necessary. What is usual may still be Alertable, at least in ACBL-land. The Alert Procedure says "semi-forcing means opener may pass with a balanced minimum," so you are right. No Alert, just an Announcement. Of course the four-card minimum length should be noted on the CC, even when playing nominal five-card majors. > However, if you do > believe that you should be providing the opponents with more complete > information about the system, you should be pre-alerting the initial > 1H opening. Passing the semi-forcing NT is subsequent to the > weirdness. Alerting, you mean, not pre-Alerting, which comes before the auction begins. The ACBL CC has ample room for indicating what lengths are expected for major suit openings. I don't think 1H would have to be Alerted, but any structured requirements for passing 1NT other than "balanced minimum" would make 1NT Alertable. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Toronto NABC July 19-28) > From Stephen Tu: > > > > On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate > > on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping > > some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, > > and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > > > > KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. > > The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) > > (1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required > > (2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or > > 4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, > > or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > > > > Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough > > to warrant an alert of the pass? > > Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly > > damaging? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 16:46:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H6jjU28077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:45:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H6jdt28073 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 16:45:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6H6fr828418 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107162122.RAA03715@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200107162122.RAA03715@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 02:37:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:22 PM -0400 7/16/01, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Ed Reppert > > >Don't overlook "differs in any way." > > > > If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* > > of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not > > say so? > >My point was that it _does_ say so. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO1Pefr2UW3au93vOEQIlmACeKw8vN/h1mmKCJRaq6EUlDtzlDtgAn2C2 hwoHFz9K1+aa8/k+1rVN2WS1 =6z1K -----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 Jul 17 17:44:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H7gxO12020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:42:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H7gqt11977 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:42:52 +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; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:41:51 +0200 Message-ID: <017a01c10e93$f5c38f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@john> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:41:57 +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 f6H7gst11992 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF To: Kooijman, A. ; David Stevenson ; Cc: Bill & Bud Schoder ; Grattan Endicott Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > | John wrote: > | > [2] NO > | > [3] NO > | > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director > | Ton wrote: > | > | could you tell us why your answers for 2 and 3 are 'no' and on which law > you > | base this? > | > | if 'pause for thought' is a consideration why this distinction between 1 > and > | the other 2? > | > | is your opinion official ACBL policy or more central/south america > oriented? > | > | ton > | > | > | You pull the wrong call from the bidding box but do not realise. > | > | > | > | Three scenarios follow. > | > | > | > | [1] Some time later you look down, see what you have done, > | > immediately > | > | attempt to change it, and are allowed to change it. OK, no problem. > | > | > | > | [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of > | > his alert you > | > | look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to > | > change it. Do > | > | we allow a change? > | > | > | > | [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his > | > | question you look down, see what you have done, immediately > | > attempt to > | > | change it. Do we allow a change? > | > | > | > | > | > | -- > > I fail to see where this is not covered under Law 16A. In the first case, > the > player noticed their own mistake and Law 25A permits the change. > In the second and third, the player notices the mistake ONLY when their > partner alerted or answered a question. Both of these acts by partner are UI > for > the player who made the mistake. When that happens, the player can no longer > save themselves becuase it was their partner that brought it to their > attention, > or may have brought it to their attention. John, Here is Law 16: 'Players are authorised to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark,.....' Law 16 only speaks of basing a call or play on UI. It does not forbid to call the director based on UI or to correct a call that a player 'never was aware of s/he made' (but that the bidding card on the table is showing). > > So, there you go, > > John > P.S. I am not against the ACBL but I have nothing to do with their policies > or > interpretations. Here in Zone 5, we try to follow the WBF's lead. > > 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 Tue Jul 17 17:53:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H7qxL15568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:52:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H7qrt15533 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:52:54 +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; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:51:53 +0200 Message-ID: <018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid><007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:51:59 +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 f6H7qtt15547 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A > Grattan Endicott writes > > >> From: "Tim West-meads" > > >> LAW 80 - SPONSORING ORGANISATION > >> A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws > >> has the following duties and powers: > >> E. Special Conditions > >> to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as > >written > >> bidding, bidding boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions > >not > >> transmitted across a screen may be suspended). > >> F. Supplementary Regulations > >> to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in > >> conflict with, these Laws. > >> > >> It appears to me that St John's Wood (North)BC has > >> contravened Law 80 in that it's published bidding box regualtions > >> are in contravention of Law 25A. > > >+=+ Once more the Geneva ruling applies. The condition in 80F > >applies to regulations made under 80F and not to regulations > >made under other sections of the Laws. In point of fact there > >is no conflict with the laws where a law authorizes a regulation > >to be made and places no restriction on its content. > > Before I make a fool of myself again, please can you confirm what I > understand the above to say. > > If I understand you correctly, a reg under L80E is allowed to conflict > with the laws. Thus the following reg is legal under L80E: > > Written bidding: Players make their calls by writing on the bidding pad, > with the calls going anti-clockwise around the table. > Obviously this should not be allowed ;o) I was not present at Geneva, but Law 80 E and F are easy enough to understand: Law 80 E deals with Special _Conditions_ (for special circumstances) that obviously fall within the framework of the regulations in the laws. That is to _extend_ the Laws for circumstances that they are not written for. (On-line bridge, bridge for seeing impaired, plays with screens, etc.) Law 80F deals with _Supplementary_ (=additional) regulations. That is regulations that the law makers did not think of or want to leave to the SO's. These regulations are allowed as long as they don't contradict the LAWS. I think a smoking regulation would be a good example. Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 18:06:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H85lm20067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:05:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H85Ht19891 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id CE14D2A551A; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:02:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 58B1B2A551E for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:02:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 25164 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 08:02:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 08:02:42 -0000 Message-ID: <3B53F063.9040700@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:59:31 +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] Hesitation (judgment ruling) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 325a4acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East > S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x > H: Q x x H: ----- > D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x > C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > > All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P The only reason for letting the score stand could be that the hesitation if East could't tell whether West was thinking about raising spades, doubling or (say) bidding 5C. I don't think this is the case here for the reasons outlined by Adam. This seems really like a routine, automatic ruling. I guess I can work out the reasoning of the AC; I have seen rulings given along the lines "thinking is not an infraction" and "East gambled and was lucky to find a fit". This probably happened here. It is not a classical RTFLB case but it comes close. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -------------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------------------- Niezwykly swiat erotycznych fantazji... http://polki.interia.pl/seks/erotyka/artykul?art_id=9768 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 18:44:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H8hhd03555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:43:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H8hbt03528 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 18:43:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.131.115] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15MQPm-00058R-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:41:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c10e9c$02c5f7a0$738301d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@john> <017a01c10e93$f5c38f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 09:39:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik wrote: > > | John wrote: [2] Your partner alerts, which surprises you. Because of his alert you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change? > > | > [2] NO and in reply to: [3] Your LHO asks a question, which sounds strange. Because of his question you look down, see what you have done, immediately attempt to change it. Do we allow a change? > > | > [3] NO These answers were, as far as I can tell, based on an interpretation of Law 16: > > In the second and third, the player notices the mistake ONLY when their > > partner alerted or answered a question. Both of these acts by partner are UI > > for the player who made the mistake. When that happens, the player can no longer > > save themselves becuase it was their partner that brought it to their attention, > > or may have brought it to their attention. Whereas this interpretation is certainly possible, I think that we need to be a little careful in determining what constitutes "information" for the purposes of Law 16. Laws 16 and 73 have to do with illegal communication between partners; the "information" which we want to prevent from being transmitted is information about the contents of partner's hand. If one says that *all* other kinds of "information" are "unauthorised" and that "actions" may not be based upon them, one may arrive at a number of ridiculous scenarios. For example: you are reaching for your bidding box to make a call when your partner tells you that it is not in fact your turn to call. This is UI, in the sense of the above interpretation. Are you now legally obliged to complete your call out of turn? Or: you are trying to decide whether to pass partner's game call or conduct a slam try auction. Your partner tells you that the bar is closing in two minutes. Realising that to try for slam will prolong the auction to the point at which you will not be able to buy any more beer, you pass. This, of course, is to base your action on the UI from partner about the bar, and should presumably be disallowed. (Of course, no right-minded appeals committee will consider that there were any possible logical alternatives to making sure that you got some more beer, but it is better not to have such questions arise.) Whereas I am not especially happy with the notion that a player may change an "inadvertent" call if attention was drawn to his mistake by some outside agency, I do not consider that such an action is prohibited by Law 16 (or by any other Law), and I would therefore allow a change in all three of the scenarios given. 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 Jul 17 19:07:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H971l11911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:07:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6H96st11871 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:06:55 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6H94R824751 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:04:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:04 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Laval wrote: > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East > S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x > H: Q x x H: ----- > D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x > C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > > All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > > The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction > continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. > 4S made (2C and 1 D). I'm not sure that EW starting with 3 rounds of spades (West petered to show the queen) wouldn't be possible under the ACBL definition of LA (for 4H+1). > When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). > N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > > The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. > He lost his first appeal.... > > Your opinion would be welcome. The only reason I can see for the AC ruling is that they determined that the hesitation suggested that West was contemplating a double. Having made such a determination then 4S is the only permitted call so no adjustment is in order. I don't know why they made this judgement but perhaps they had some evidence of which we are unaware. Consider for a moment that the SQ/CK are swapped and East chose to pass 4H. Would we criticise an AC which determined that the hesitation suggested passing and ruled the contract to 4Sx going down lots? I would have ruled initially like your student. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 19:49:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6H9nfj12759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:49:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow025o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6H9nYt12755 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:47:00 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c10ea5$88298660$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:47:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 10:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > At 11:40 AM 7/16/01, Steve wrote: > > > > From: Ron Johnson > > > You may recall Larry Cohen's > > > case from Lille. He opened 1H on a 10 count and a 4 card major. > > > THe system bid in his case (light opens, big club) but fairly > > > likely to be a different choice than what was opened at the other > > table. > > > >Don't overlook "differs in any way." Unless the incorrect and correct > >pairs are playing much the same system, the same call is likely to have > >a different meaning. The ACBL gives the example of 1C artificial, 16+, > >versus the usual sort of natural 1C opener. Another poster here gave > >the example of "normal" 1S versus "Magic Diamond" 1S. In such blatant > >cases, it is obvious to cancel the board, but it may have to be > >cancelled even if the difference is more subtle. What about, for > >example, 1M opened by both an Acol and a Precision player? Or even K-S > >(five cards, can be fairly light) versus 2/1 (five cards, sound > >values)? And don't overlook the corresponding passes: the 2/1 bidder > >will pass some hands the K-S player would have opened, so the two > >passes are not really the same. > > > >I don't know about Cohen's case, but if the previous player was not a > >big clubber, it seems likely that the board was unplayable no matter > >what Cohen did. On the other hand, if the two pairs are playing the > >same system, there's at least a chance that identical calls will have > >the same meaning. > > That's a very slippery slope. It's often the case that the two calls > will have "the same meaning", but never the case that that they will > have the absolutely identical meaning. > > I start a board against the wrong opponents, one of whom, the dealer, > opens 1S, at which point the mis-move is noticed. The correct pair > sits down, and the TD notes that their CC is identical to the previous > pair's. The TD tells us to start a second auction, per L15C. Dealer > opens 1S again, at which point the TD walks away. The dealer becomes > declarer. > > Now it is trick 9, and I'm on lead. Who has the key missing > honor? Aha! I know this 1S bidder opens very light; I should be > worried that he could, on the auction, have as little as 10 HCP. But I > also know that the first 1S bidder is a fairly sound opener, so *this > time* this declarer will almost certainly have no less than 12 HCP, > which would place the key card in his hand. It would seem that the > wrong opponents' irregularity has put the correct opponents at a > disadvantage. What now? > > At some level, perhaps an extraordinary deep and subtle one, but some > level nevertheless, the test in L15C -- "if any call differs in any way > from the corresponding call in the first auction" -- can be considered > to be redundant; it will always be the case. Perhaps here is the rub for thiose of us who don't mind so much bout the 7NT bid being in contravention of the Law-makers' intentions - ANY CALL MADE BY A DIFERENT PLAYER IS A DIFFERENT CALL Say NS vul Dealer W the Auction goes West Pass North 1H East Pass oops wrong oppo Mike and David S are at the wrong table - "Mr and Mrs Almost-Ninety and Never bid unless we have 2 1/2 Honour tricks" are substituted and the reconstituted auction goes West Pass North 1H East Pass North South have buckets of information that they would have not had if the correct opponents had sat down in the first place Variations in system - style - even tempo as someone else has suggested all makes calls different. I certainly would rule that a pair playing Precision who opened 1S and a pair palying Acol who bid the same were making calls that "differed in any way" but I guess from this discussion that some of my colleagues do not agree. In a club situation - fine - let's play bridge - but in national or international competitions perhps I am arguing that this Law is unworkable and tht at the very least the Lawmakers should return to the previous position where to continue required the concurrence of the late arrivals >Recognizing this, we > might rewrite L15C along the lines of: "If, during the auction period, > the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not > designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the > auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated, and apply L16B > forthwith." > > > 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 Tue Jul 17 21:55:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HBt6X23593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:55:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HBsxt23589 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15MTOv-000EBO-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:52:32 +0100 Message-ID: <7XmPUiFVc4U7EwzG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:30:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question References: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Stephen Tu writes >On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate >on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping >some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, >and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > >KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. >The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) >(1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required >(2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or >4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, >or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > >Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough >to warrant an alert of the pass? >Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly >damaging? I am sure it is not alertable in the EBU, and pretty certain not in the WBF. I think this is not close enough to an alert in the EBU for an alert to be acceptable. Behind screens in the WBF I expect it does little harm to alert. -- 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 Jul 17 22:06:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HC6Gm24958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:06:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HC69t24918 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:06:10 +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 f6HC3gF16607 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:03:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@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, 17 Jul 2001 08:04:51 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question In-Reply-To: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.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 03:36 PM 7/16/01, Stephen wrote: >On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate >on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping >some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, >and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > >KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. >The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) >(1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required >(2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or >4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, >or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > >Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough >to warrant an alert of the pass? >Would alerting this be considered wrong, excessive, or possibly >damaging? No need to alert. There's nothing unusual about passing a semi-forcing NT with a four-card suit; what may be unusual (it is in ACBL-land) is opening a four-card major to begin with, but that's not (yet) an alert in any jurisdiction. Indeed, the ACBL's definition of the "semi-forcing NT", which assumes five-card major openings and calls for a pass with a balanced minimum, is fairly new. In times gone by, semi-forcing NT was a feature of four-card major systems, and rebidder passed only with a four-cards suit and a minimum. I still play this treatment occasionally; when I do, I alert the pass as denying a five-card or longer holding. 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 Jul 17 22:49:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HCmt405142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HCmmt05114 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:48:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6HCkLA95178 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717083432.00a92450@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, 17 Jul 2001 08:47:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:53 PM 7/16/01, Laval wrote: > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > >Your opinion would be welcome. I would agree with Laval and the TD. Pass on the East cards seems normal; West's hesitation suggested that acting would be better than passing. So pass is an LA, and the huddle demonstrably suggested that it would not lead to the best possible score. I'm vaguely sympathetic to East, who, if he were really trying to pull a cheat, would probably have doubled, but L16's "one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another" [i.e. any other], does seem to apply here, so we should follow the laws. I find the "opposite situation" test useful in cases like these. Here I ask myself whether I would have been comfortable adjusting the score had West passed in a nanosecond and East subsequently passed. I'm doubtful about that one, hence comfortable reversing the result in the actual situation. 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 Jul 17 23:43:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HDgsV13761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:42:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HDgjt13713 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:42:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts114.eiu.edu [139.67.16.114]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f6HDduT28354 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:40:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010717083208.007c9770@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:32:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c10e0d$99a6e560$522828c4@john> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8B4@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 09:38 AM 7/16/01 -0600, you wrote: >The heading of Law 16 says ".... To base a call or play on other extraneous >information may be an infraction of Law." > >Law 73A1 says "Communication between partners during the auction and >the play shall be affected only by the means of the calls and plays >themselves." > >Law 25A states "... for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or >attempts to >do so, without pause for thought." > >It seems to me that I have a position here. A player makes a bridge mistake >that violates no Law. The opponents may or may not benefit in the final >result. >The player revokes but does not catch it in time, so the Law protects the >innocent side. The player makes a bidding mistake and fails to catch it in >time themselves. However, partner gets involved and alerts or answers a >question, and the player "pauses for thought" and notices their mistake. > >I still feel that the player's mistaken call stands when their partner makes >them aware of the problem in any way. Obviously the player will "pause for >thought" when partner does something strange - "Why is partner alerting?". The pause for thought is considered to be a 'pause after noticing the mistake'. If I pause for thought after partner alerts and _then_ notice the mistake and immediately try to correct it, there has been no 'pause for thought' for the purposes of this law. This is the way I was taught to apply the law in general. But, leaving this aside, this case reminds me of the controversial recent case regarding a pause by partner that allows one to notice a mistaken Blackwood response. My view with regard to the two cases is the same--it's not a UI infraction if there was no LA to the call you wish to make, based on the AI alone. My own bids are AI. I think my own bids would be AI even if partner looked at me incredulously and said "are you really bidding 1H, partner?" [I wouldn't protest a PP for such a blatant act by partner, but I don't think even that makes it UI that I bid 1H.] >I must say that I was never in favour of Law 25, although it has a definite >use in certain cases. However, when partner gets involved, I believe that >we have opened an unauthorized line of communication. I was always in favor of L25_A_. I don't see that it opens an unauthorized line of communication. How? Does partner alert my 2D bid, say, because he somehow knows that my call was totally inadvertant? Of course not--he alerts it because it's supposed to be Flannery. How could he know it was inadvertant? In other words, I don't think partner conveys UI to me when he _cannot possibly_ know that he is conveying that UI. I see no reason why we should try to block players from correcting _inadvertant_ calls. I prefer the most lenient possible interpretation of 'no pause for thought'. >John Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 23:43:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HDguv13773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:42:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HDgmt13732 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:42:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts114.eiu.edu [139.67.16.114]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f6HDe3T28422 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:40:03 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010717083618.007cac10@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:36:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:04 PM 7/16/01 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > Here is the relevant fragment from the "Bridge World" (I'99, >"Losing At Lille"). > >+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > A few more flat boards followed. Then Bobby Levin and Brad Moss >arrived at the table with a director in tow. The movement was a modified >scrambled Mitchell (every pair would play every other pair) and >Levin-Moss had started the deal at the wrong table. The director >informed us to begin the auction but if any call deviated from what >Levin-Moss had already seen then we'd get an above average-plus and >they'd get average minus. This seemed ridiculous but we had no choice >except to proceed as ordered. I picked up > >K95 >AJ109 >7 >Q10764 > >It went two passes to me and I knew I could open (say) 7NT and receive >an average-plus. I supposes that's against the spirit of the game but >that what would Edgar have said, I wonder [perhaps that, in the context >of this foolish procedure, the Director was at fault in not instructing >that participants to take normal actions - Ed]. I guessed to open 1H >(we play a strong club so my choices were limited) and the director >stopped the auction; I had drawn a winning ticket. I never found out >what Levin-Moss's other opponent had done with my cards. This "skipped >deal" was a harbinger of weird things to come. >+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > My personal view is the relevant law is ridiculous for the >reason given by Cohen; I can see the intention (as I can >see the intention behind the L25) but I still regard these Laws >as monsters. Some time ago I posted a Kees Tammens' case >who deliberately lost a match to qualify to the next stage of >the Dutch trials. I share his opinion that the lawmakers are >far too careless about the laws and regulation they create. >It's interesting that very often these lawmakers are first who >punish players who try to take advantage of these laws *in their >best interest*. I am astonished that anyone would want to punish >the player who simply did his best to win the tournament >*according to the rules*. If you see the intention of the Law, how can you be astonished that someone would like to punish someone for taking an action knowingly designed to violate that intention? If the government wrote a law designed to protect the environment, but leaves a loophole that could allow one to increase pollution in a way not anticipated, would you be astonished if the authorities tried to find some way to punish them for trying to use the loophole to subvert the intention? This is another argument for an idea that I have voiced before, which has been met with overwhelming apathy from this group. :) I think every law should be accompanied, in the text, by an explanation from the Lawmakers regarding the reason for the law in general and an explanation of how it is to be applied. In that case, this law would have been accompanied by an explanation along the lines of "The purpose of this law is to try to save a legitimate bridge result whenever reasonably possible in situations like this, while protecting the Nos in cases where no such result is possible."(*) The TD can then use this explanation to try to apply the law by explaining to the players that they should try to seek a real birdge result by bidding normally. Writing laws of any kind that are totally free from loopholes is virtually impossible. But if the laws are accompanied by explanatory notes then reasonable interpretations are encouraged. > Konrad Ciborowski (*): This is a quicky version, of course. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 17 23:43:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HDhkQ14048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:43:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HDhdt14010 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:43:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts114.eiu.edu [139.67.16.114]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f6HDf0T28730 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:41:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010717084811.007cc420@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:48:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:38 AM 7/16/01 -0600, you wrote: >The heading of Law 16 says ".... To base a call or play on other extraneous >information may be an infraction of Law." > >Law 73A1 says "Communication between partners during the auction and >the play shall be affected only by the means of the calls and plays >themselves." > >Law 25A states "... for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or >attempts to >do so, without pause for thought." > >It seems to me that I have a position here. A player makes a bridge mistake >that violates no Law. The opponents may or may not benefit in the final >result. >The player revokes but does not catch it in time, so the Law protects the >innocent side. The player makes a bidding mistake and fails to catch it in >time themselves. However, partner gets involved and alerts or answers a >question, and the player "pauses for thought" and notices their mistake. > >I still feel that the player's mistaken call stands when their partner makes >them aware of the problem in any way. Obviously the player will "pause for >thought" when partner does something strange - "Why is partner alerting?". The pause for thought is considered to be a 'pause after noticing the mistake'. If I pause for thought after partner alerts and _then_ notice the mistake and immediately try to correct it, there has been no 'pause for thought' for the purposes of this law. This is the way I was taught to apply the law in general. But, leaving this aside, this case reminds me of the controversial recent case regarding a pause by partner that allows one to notice a mistaken Blackwood response. My view with regard to the two cases is the same--it's not a UI infraction if there was no LA to the call you wish to make, based on the AI alone. My own bids are AI. I think my own bids would be AI even if partner looked at me incredulously and said "are you really bidding 1H, partner?" [I wouldn't protest a PP for such a blatant act by partner, but I don't think even that makes it UI that I bid 1H.] >I must say that I was never in favour of Law 25, although it has a definite >use in certain cases. However, when partner gets involved, I believe that >we have opened an unauthorized line of communication. I was always in favor of L25_A_. I don't see that it opens an unauthorized line of communication. How? Does partner alert my 2D bid, say, because he somehow knows that my call was totally inadvertant? Of course not--he alerts it because it's supposed to be Flannery. How could he know it was inadvertant? In other words, I don't think partner conveys UI to me when he _cannot possibly_ know that he is conveying that UI. I see no reason why we should try to block players from correcting _inadvertant_ calls. I prefer the most lenient possible interpretation of 'no pause for thought'. >John Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 00:33:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HEWoI22209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:32:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HEWht22180 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:32:44 +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 KAA08634 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA11517 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:30:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107171430.KAA11517@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > 3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. Just a note, though I don't differ with anybody else. The language of L16A is "demonstrably suggested over another." In this case, did the pause _demonstrably_ suggest 4S over pass? Anything "may have" been suggested, but that isn't enough. It seems to me that the TD might ask the player (at the table but after the hand) why he bid 4S. Perhaps there is something in the pair's methods we are missing, though I doubt it. On the facts presented, the 4S bid looks so bad I am tempted to call it a L73C violation. That won't make any difference in the score, but if East is experienced, it may lead to a PP. > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I'm not sure that EW starting with 3 rounds of spades (West petered > to show the queen) wouldn't be possible under the ACBL definition of > LA (for 4H+1). This is a good analysis, but it isn't a question of "LA." The relevant tests are "likely" and "at all probable" in L12C2. The ACBL uses 1/3 for the former, 1/6 for the latter. Of course these are meant to be rough indications, not precise limits. Another key point -- and this may be what Tim was getting at -- is that East has to defend with the UI restrictions still in place. We should assign the adjusted score on that basis. I am not at all sure it will be legal to defend in any other way than three rounds of spades. Quite likely the hesitation suggests spade support and thus switching to a different suit. Thus I would tend to assign 4H+1 for both sides. Much food for thought, even in a seemingly routine hand! This is why TD's should always consult on a judgment ruling, even an "obvious" one. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 00:37:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HEbRJ23817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:37:27 +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 f6HEbLt23782 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:37:21 +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 KAA20809 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:34:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA16888; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:34:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107171434.KAA16888@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. EW appealed, no? >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > First, tell him that directors should never take the appeal personally. HE did not lose the appeal, NS did (or, rather, EW won it). Next, tell him that appeal committees, being "democratic", are never wrong, no matter how bad the ruling they make is. :-) Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 00:59:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HExVI01644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:59:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r08.mx.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.104]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HExPt01609 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:59:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id r.ac.17d44028 (6397); Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:56:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:56:52 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: john@asimere.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ac.17d44028.2885ac34_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_ac.17d44028.2885ac34_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/17/01 12:14:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john@asimere.com writes: > This *is* a different auction. I might just as well open 7NT. > > > Yes John it is a different auction, and a capable TD will have determined that your bid differs and not allow it to continue. For him to do this he must of course find out what both 1 Spades mean. The essence of what I'm trying to say is that if you (second West) took a bridge action, there is a Law to protect you if that action differs in any respect from previous action by the other West. doing this you are following the spirit of the Laws in giving them the opportunity to provide an adequate remedy for the departure from correct procedure. If perchance your bid is the SAME (read IDENTICAL if you please as a synonym) there is no difference, and you are tasked with trying to get the best result on this hand. Forcing the TD to cancel the board and assign you 60% by bidding 7NT is, IMHO not a bridge action. It simply states that "I don't want to play this hand against this pair." Kojak --part1_ac.17d44028.2885ac34_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/17/01 12:14:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
john@asimere.com writes:



This *is* a different auction. I might just as well open 7NT.






Yes John it is a different auction, and a capable TD will have determined
that your bid differs and not allow it to continue. For him to do this he
must of course find out what both 1 Spades mean.  

The essence of what I'm trying to say is that if you (second West) took a
bridge action, there is a Law to protect you if that action differs in any
respect  from previous action by the other West. doing this you are following
the spirit of the Laws in giving them the opportunity to provide an adequate
remedy for the departure from correct procedure.  If perchance your bid is
the SAME (read IDENTICAL if you please as a synonym) there is no difference,
and you are tasked with trying to get the best result on this hand. Forcing
the TD to cancel the board and assign you 60% by bidding 7NT is, IMHO not a
bridge action. It simply states that "I don't want to play this hand against
this pair."

Kojak --part1_ac.17d44028.2885ac34_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 00:59:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HExl201728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:59:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r09.mx.aol.com (imo-r09.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.105]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HExet01689 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:59:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id k.18.f62afb8 (6397); Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:56:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <18.f62afb8.2885ac36@aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:56:54 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_18.f62afb8.2885ac36_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_18.f62afb8.2885ac36_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/17/01 9:42:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu writes: > ? > This is another argument for an idea that I have voiced before, > which has been met with overwhelming apathy from this group. :) I think > every law should be accompanied, in the text, by an explanation from the > Lawmakers regarding the reason for the law in general and an explanation > of how it is to be applied. In that case, this law would have been > accompanied by an explanation along the lines of "The purpose of this > law is to try to save a legitimate bridge result whenever reasonably > possible in situations like this, while protecting the Nos in cases > where no such result is possible."(*) The TD can then use this explanation > to try to apply the law by explaining to the players that they should try > to seek a real birdge result by bidding normally. > Writing laws of any kind that are totally free from loopholes is > virtually impossible. But if the laws are accompanied by explanatory > notes then reasonable interpretations are encouraged. > > Your exposition does not meet with apathy from me. What you propose is really what the various LC's and TDs are charged to do by their By-laws and Law 81 C 5. We have come to a habit of sort of "taking the law into our own hands" as players, and much of this comes about from TDs not doing their jobs in the most professional manner. Some ACs are also guilty in this respect. A number of BLMLers want exact recipes that require no thinking, interpretation, or other mental exercise on the part of the TD. This attitude further adds to the distrust and unwillingness to accept TD rulings evident in many places. We have swung the pendulum toward the extreme when we hear such instructions as "rule against the infractor and tell them of their right to appeal, -- effectively eroding confidence in TDs. By the way, your thoughts on the purpose of Law 15 are lucid and cogent. The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees is a good start at getting back on track. Explanatory notes for the Laws are fine, and could/need to be incorporated in a much expanded Scope of the Laws. It has always bothered me that there is so little attention given, even by the promulgators, to telling us why things are as they are. I remember an excellent seminar given by Edgar, Ralph Cohen, and I think Roger Stern in 1988 in Miami on the changes in the Laws, and still refer often to the explanatory notes of Edgar's that were circulated in ACBL at that time. And, were we able to write Laws that needed no interpretation in their proper application we wouldn't need lawyers and judges would we? I maintain that a highly litiginous society is one which distrusts its structure, and the ability and performance of its officials. --part1_18.f62afb8.2885ac36_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/17/01 9:42:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cfgcs@eiu.edu
writes:



?
   This is another argument for an idea that I have voiced before,
which has been met with overwhelming apathy from this group. :)  I think
every law should be accompanied, in the text, by an explanation from the
Lawmakers regarding the reason for the law in general and an explanation
of how it is to be applied.  In that case, this law would have been
accompanied by an explanation along the lines of "The purpose of this
law is to try to save a legitimate bridge result whenever reasonably
possible in situations like this, while protecting the Nos in cases
where no such result is possible."(*)  The TD can then use this explanation
to try to apply the law by explaining to the players that they should try
to seek a real birdge result by bidding normally.
   Writing laws of any kind that are totally free from loopholes is
virtually impossible.  But if the laws are accompanied by explanatory
notes then reasonable interpretations are encouraged.





Your exposition does not meet with apathy from me.  What you propose is
really what the various LC's and TDs are charged to do by their By-laws and
Law 81 C 5.  We have come to a habit of sort of "taking the law into our own
hands" as players, and much of this comes about from TDs not doing their jobs
in the most professional manner. Some ACs are also guilty in this respect. A
number of BLMLers want exact recipes that require no thinking,
interpretation, or other mental exercise on the part of the TD.  This
attitude further adds to the distrust and unwillingness to accept TD rulings
evident in many places.  We have swung the pendulum toward the extreme when
we hear such instructions as "rule against the infractor and tell them of
their right to appeal, -- effectively eroding confidence in TDs.

By the way, your thoughts on the purpose of Law 15 are lucid and cogent.

The Code of Practice for Appeals Committees is a good start at getting back
on track. Explanatory notes for the Laws are fine, and could/need to be
incorporated in a much expanded Scope of the Laws. It has always bothered me
that there is so little attention given, even by the promulgators, to telling
us why things are as they are. I remember an excellent seminar given by
Edgar, Ralph Cohen, and I think Roger Stern in 1988 in Miami on the changes
in the Laws, and still refer often to the explanatory notes of Edgar's that
were circulated in ACBL at that time.

And, were we able to write Laws that needed no interpretation in their proper
application we wouldn't need lawyers and judges would we? I maintain that a
highly litiginous society is one which distrusts its structure, and the
ability and performance of its officials.      --part1_18.f62afb8.2885ac36_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 01:03:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HF3Zw03043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:03:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HF3St03008 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:03:29 +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 LAA10047 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:01:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11589 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:01:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:01:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107171501.LAA11589@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > To E/W: "Just because another pair > mistakenly started to play your hands doesn't necessarily mean you cannot > play them. Please sit down and play the board, while I stand by to protect > you from any damage. I will be very unhappy if you try to take advantage of > the situation." Why would you be unhappy? Aren't players expected to try to "take advantage" of any situation? ("Take advantage" within the Laws, of course.) How are EW to interpret such instructions, anyway? What is it that they are not allowed to do? > AC: "How were you damaged?" > > "I could have bid 7NT and gotten an average-plus instead of the zero I > received playing three notrump." If your instructions were really the ones you say, I expect the AC would have no option but to rule under L82C. Look, in a club situation, all of us are unhappy with a pair that doesn't want to play bridge deals, but as long as the pair stays within the laws, we can't do anything in the scoring. If the TD wants to take them aside later and have a little chat, I don't see anything wrong with that. Or if you think this is a conduct offense, then treat it as one. (It would be a conduct offense if 7NT isn't an attempt to improve the pair's score, as David S. has pointed out.) But don't go bending the laws because of "convention disruption" or "It's illegal to psych," or "Four card majors are unfair," or something else you don't like. As others have said, I think the 1997 change was a step backward, but we are stuck for now. Often the TD will have a difficult judgment decision about whether a call "differs in any way" from the same call made by a different player. For the future, it seems to me that the critical moment comes when the first incorrect player makes a call. Once that has happened, either the board should continue with the incorrect players (as under L15A1), or it should be played by the correct players only by consent of the innocent pair. I especially like Tim's points: "Could you repeat the auction please, with all the hesitations, tones of voice, and gestures?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 01:24:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HFNxp09560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:23:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HFNft09556 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:23:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id B7A1A2A4C7F; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 83FFD2A492D for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:20:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 31034 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 15:21:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 15:21:04 -0000 Message-ID: <3B545720.6090907@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:17:52 +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] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3.0.6.32.20010717083618.007cac10@eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: c61faacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > If you see the intention of the Law, how can you be astonished that > someone would like to punish someone for taking an action knowingly > designed to violate that intention? Because I am convinced that the Law should be applied "as is". I hate that "actually we meant something different" approach. If the Law is broken then admit to an error, fix it, but don't punish players who play by the rules. BTW I think it is very hard to codify "normal actions" so I just vote for shooting that ugly creature called 15C. Offenders get A-, NOs A+, period. What about the argument "let's play bridge"? I think that it is a very good idea to have different law books for different levels. Anyway what is going on in a local duplicate has almost nothing in common with what happens during the WC; so let's acknoledge this and not pretend that we are playing according to the same set of rules in both events. > If the government wrote a law designed > to protect the environment, but leaves a loophole that could allow one to > increase pollution in a way not anticipated, would you be astonished if the > authorities tried to find some way to punish them for trying to use > the loophole to subvert the intention? Most emphatically: yes. In Poland it is forbidden to advertise alcohol. So the companies do some sort of clever tricks to get around this: 1) apart from regular beer they produce alcohol-free beer and produce spots that advertise only this alcohol-free beer 2) a company that sells the vodka "Bols" buillt a yacht called "Bols" and founded a sister-firm that hires this boat for trips; the gag is that the words "boat" and "vodka" are very similar in Polish (the adds go "boat Bolls - the best boat"). 3) a company that sells the vodka "Zytnia" found a tiny village in Poland with exactlly that name and organises a folk-festival there (the bilboards say "one Zytnia; one festival"). ... and many, many more. Although I don't drink alcohol at all my heart is fully with these companies; they haven't been punished so far and I would be astonished if there were. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -------------------------------------------------------- Zakaz ogladania filmow ze scenami palenia papierosow??? http://wiadomosci.interia.pl/ciekawostki/news?inf=114071 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 01:49:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HFnJ609601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 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 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 f6HFnDt09597 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:49:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA14820; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:46:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200107171546.IAA14820@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Wandering In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:37:27 PDT." <00b101c10e83$49769f60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:46:46 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > From: "Michael Farebrother" > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > I also do something that I (and not everyone) can do when going up for > > water - I take my glasses off. > > Excellent idea, I am going to do the same, holding the glasses in my hand > when I necessarily have to visit the john at other than break times. I > don't drink water much. Water is for washing, not drinking. After what happened a couple weeks ago, I don't think I can agree with the last. I played in the Hollywood Park regional on Tuesday, at 10:30 and 3 (starting times my system just isn't used to anyway), after visiting the office and getting some work done in the morning. In the first session, I tried to drink several cups of coffee to help me stay awake. The result was about a 52% game, culminating in a round in which they bid an unmakable slam; however, I sleepily won my ace at trick 10 and found myself endplayed into giving them the slam, when a simple duck would have beaten them. In the second session, I switched to drinking water and we had a 68% game. We would have won the event if I had beaten that slam in the first session. So I'm now convinced that water is definitely for drinking, and I'm going to try to rely on it more than on coffee and see if it helps my game. Like Michael, I wouldn't appreciate restrictions on when I can leave the table to get myself some water. As for my glasses, I think I'm already not wearing them when I get up to get a drink (or visit the men's room). The reason for this is that I've reached a point where I have to take my glasses off at the table in order to see the cards. I guess it's just a matter of time before I'll have to get bifocals. SIGH . . . -- 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 Jul 18 01:54:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HFrsJ09622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:53:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HFrlt09613 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:53:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-143.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.143]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6HFpHn16780 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:51:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B54206B.9FD07019@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:24:27 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B517367.37D990C1@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Ed, all, Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 12:41 PM +0200 7/15/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > >No I don't agree with this. > > Sorry to hear it. :-) > Are you of the variety of posters on blml who are happy to disagree ? Or just of the variety that disagreeing with Herman does not count ? > >I believe the player should have the right to not play the > >board at all. > > There is, iirc, a law in the book somewhere about a player having the > option not to play a board. I don't believe that law (or any similar > one) applies to this case. > L16B2 - replacement player. Indeed not at all comparable to this case. I agree with you that L15C does not give the option to the new pair to refuse to play, and this was something I previously believed to be the case. So in that sense, I have changed my view. I shall henceforth no longer tell the NOs how far the auction went (and stay at the table somechat longer than it originally went so as not to give it away. That way, the 7NT tactic will not be without risk. > >"differs in any way". It's a different person making the > >call - that is a difference. > > Pfui. Or, as DWS said to me recently , pshaw. If the lawmakers had > intended this difference to matter, there wouldn't *be* a law 15C. > Well, but L15C does exist, and it does say "differs in any way". You do understand that a 1Cl opening by a strong clubber is not the same as by an acol player ? And that L15C would be used to award A+ to NOs in that case ? > > I don't want a director to > >have to judge if my bid is the same as someone else's. > > 1S is 1S - and that is all the law is concerned with. > No, the law goes further, "in any way". Now I am no longer concerned with the player who just does not want to play the board because he is facing Meckwell, and 60% will be very useful. I am concerned with Meckwell playing Zia, and Meckwell (correctly) telling the TD that the Pass that had previously been called by Bob Hamman is not the same Pass as the one Meckstroth has bid, and that Zia knows the difference. In that sense, I do allow Meckstroth to say to the Director : whatever call I make will have a sufficiently important difference of meaning that I'd rather take A+ straight away. > >I may accept to play - and most people do come to play - but > >I should not be forced to do so, and I don't believe that > >the laws force me to do so. > > Well, we disagree then. Again. :-) > Well, maybe we don't, anymore. But I would like to see you deal with someone who now bids his second choice - just to hope to get a different bid that the previous one. > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use > > iQA/AwUBO1NPE72UW3au93vOEQKz7wCfRUM6VpLLjIPXcLLKwpzTCCwCoNoAoPUu > wNcUYws+r3WzOSgLTRbrDbby > =yacy > -----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/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 01:54:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HFrvf09623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:53:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HFrnt09616 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:53:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-143.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.143]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6HFpLn16844 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:51:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B5422F5.BFB23794@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:35:17 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@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 some level, perhaps an extraordinary deep and subtle one, but some > level nevertheless, the test in L15C -- "if any call differs in any way > from the corresponding call in the first auction" -- can be considered > to be redundant; it will always be the case. Recognizing this, we > might rewrite L15C along the lines of: "If, during the auction period, > the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not > designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the > auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated, and apply L16B > forthwith." > If we are going to change the laws, then why not simply allow the board to be completed and apply L15A ? BTW, I did not find in L15 what happens when the mistake is discovered during the play - it seems to me as if neither L15C nor L15A applies ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 02:06:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HG6OB09656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:06:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HG6It09652 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:06:19 +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 30B26DNS; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:03:52 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010717083618.007cac10@eiu.edu> References: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:15:17 -0500 To: Grant Sterling , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: (big snip) "Writing laws of any kind that are totally free from loopholes is virtually impossible." The US Internal Revenue Code is a nice illustration of how hard it is to wrtie laws with carefully crafted loopholes. 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 Wed Jul 18 02:09:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HG9in09672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:09:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HG9ct09667 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:09:39 +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 MAA13243 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA11722 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:07:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107171607.MAA11722@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > BTW, I did not find in L15 what happens when the mistake is > discovered during the play - it seems to me as if neither > L15C nor L15A applies ? You can apply L15A if you choose the correct definition of 'play'. (Chapter 1 gives four choices.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 03:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HH3pF09768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:03:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HH3gt09757 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:03:43 +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 15MYDh-0007rf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:01:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:49:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> In-Reply-To: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis writes >From: "alain gottcheiner" >> A recent AC in which I sat went one step farther (too far ?) : we applied >a >> small PP to a player who admitted he realized quite quickly his misbisd, >> and did not correct it. Although there is no obligation to correct, we >knew >> he knew he could, and we felt he could well have declined it on purpose, >to >> create the ensuing imbroglio (knowing the guy). Ask Herman for details. >Getting caught up on e-mail, I just noticed this. A player received a PP >for a completely legal bid, because he did not change it when he realized it >was inadvertent? Oh well, I guess the theme goes well with the thread on >opting for an AAS. It seems that even legal calls are subject to penalty >these days, as long as a TD or AC feels our intentions were impure. Be fair, the situations are not comparable. In Alain's case the played did nothing remote illegal, so a PP is totally inexcusable. In the AAS case there is a question whether it was illegal. The player's intentions are relevant insofar as they affect the legality of what he does. -- 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 Jul 18 03:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HH40R09777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:04:00 +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 f6HH3lt09763 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:03:47 +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 15MYDi-000NeE-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:01:17 +0000 Message-ID: <8Y3xGDD0mDV7EwLs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:12:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >>ton kooijman wrote: >>> >You forget to say a few things : South is required to bid >>> >the same, West is not (L15C). West is not required to >>> >accept to play and he can force this. >>> Where in the laws do you find that option for West? >I have a problem with this Law. Eric Leong goes to the wrong table and >bids 1 spade. The mistake is discovered and he goes away, and I arrive >and bid 1 spade (playing with Gordon). The board is clearly unplayable >at this point. I open about two and a half points lighter than Eric. >Since my call is the first in the auction and the auction completes, >then Gordon *knows* I'm about 13-15, not 10-15. > >This *is* a different auction. I might just as well open 7NT. No. It is the TD's job to determine whether the board is unplayable based on whether the auction is different. The player does not judge that: he makes his call and the TD judges. But opening 7NT is a deliberate effort to make the auction different. So the question is whether it is allowed under the Laws of the game. Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ At which point as ever the circle of debate is >complete. As I said some time ago it is a remarkable >argument that suggests the making of a legal call >to be a source, within the intentions of 74A2, >of 'annoyance or embarrassment to another player'. >The Director could use this same approach to ban >psyching, to remedy for opponents the effects of >"convention disruption", to disallow preemptive >openers on pathetic suits, and much else. Struggles >to find something other than the procedure >ordained in Law 15C, to deal with a player's lawful >but repugnant choice of call where 15C applies, are >not dispassionate; the Director should be instructed >to set aside his feelings and apply the relevant Law >15C dutifully and without demur. That it might >be desirable to amend the Law is another matter. Well, Grattan, to quote you to yourself [!!!] frivolous psyching may be an infraction of Law. Which Law? Eric Landau writes >At 11:49 AM 7/16/01, David wrote: > >> I agree. That is why we penalise him for a breach of L74A2. >> >> It is nothing to do with outraged emotions: the Director has no right >>to ignore L74A2. > >Penalize *whom*? > >Surely if anyone has "cause[d] annoyance... or... interfere[d] with the >enjoyment of the game" it is the E-W pair that sat at the wrong table >to begin with; if anyone has violated L74A2 it is they, not the correct >E-W pair, whose own "enjoyment of the game" would surely be interfered >with by being forced to attempt to bid "normally", whatever that means, >so as to give the N-S pair an opportunity to play the board with >whatever subtle inference might be available to them from the fact that >the correct E-W pair had the same auction as the real culprits (as in >the example in my previous post), when they do not wish to take such a >risk. Oh, tosh. Are you suggesting that the E/W pair sat at the wrong table *deliberately* so as to upset their opponents? Well, if they did, certainly we can deal with them, and very severely. >David's position comes uncomfortably close to interpreting L74A2 so >broadly as to give the TD essentially unlimited authority to penalize >any action of which he disapproves. My position is that we have a Law which does not allow a player to unreasonably upset another player. It is not up to me to worry about the effects of applying this Law. Of course a TD has to judge the situation: TDs have to do that all the time. Ed Reppert writes >At 11:40 AM -0400 7/16/01, Steve Willner wrote: >>Don't overlook "differs in any way." > >If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* >of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not >say so? ???? It does: it says differs in *any* 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 Wed Jul 18 03:04:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HH42w09779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:04:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HH3mt09766 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:03:49 +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 15MYDi-000NeF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:01:21 +0000 Message-ID: <+4VxuLD+mDV7EwIG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:12:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> In-Reply-To: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> 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 > Here is the relevant fragment from the "Bridge World" (I'99, >"Losing At Lille"). > >+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > A few more flat boards followed. Then Bobby Levin and Brad Moss >arrived at the table with a director in tow. The movement was a modified >scrambled Mitchell (every pair would play every other pair) and >Levin-Moss had started the deal at the wrong table. The director >informed us to begin the auction but if any call deviated from what >Levin-Moss had already seen then we'd get an above average-plus and >they'd get average minus. This seemed ridiculous but we had no choice >except to proceed as ordered. I picked up > >K95 >AJ109 >7 >Q10764 > >It went two passes to me and I knew I could open (say) 7NT and receive >an average-plus. I supposes that's against the spirit of the game but >that what would Edgar have said, I wonder [perhaps that, in the context >of this foolish procedure, the Director was at fault in not instructing >that participants to take normal actions - Ed]. This seems an oversimplification. Either opening 7NT is legal or it isn't. My view, expressed elsewhere, is that it depends on whether it is a breach of L74A2 or not. I think that what the TD should be doing is to make a suitable warning once we are happy we know the legalities. > I guessed to open 1H >(we play a strong club so my choices were limited) and the director >stopped the auction; I had drawn a winning ticket. I never found out >what Levin-Moss's other opponent had done with my cards. This "skipped >deal" was a harbinger of weird things to come. >+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > My personal view is the relevant law is ridiculous for the >reason given by Cohen; I can see the intention (as I can >see the intention behind the L25) but I still regard these Laws >as monsters. Some time ago I posted a Kees Tammens' case >who deliberately lost a match to qualify to the next stage of >the Dutch trials. I share his opinion that the lawmakers are >far too careless about the laws and regulation they create. I think you are being unfair: it is not as easy as you think to see the ramifications. with much better communications and discussion forums these days it should be easier for people in future to see the effects of Laws, but criticising people in the past for not seeing the effects is not fair. >It's interesting that very often these lawmakers are first who >punish players who try to take advantage of these laws *in their >best interest*. I am astonished that anyone would want to punish >the player who simply did his best to win the tournament >*according to the rules*. So am I, but in the original case there is no suggestion that the player was doing this. -- 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 Jul 18 03:04:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HH41P09778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:04:01 +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 f6HH3mt09765 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:03:48 +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 15MYDi-000NeI-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:01:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:18:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >From: David Stevenson >> Before I make a fool of myself again, please can you confirm what I >> understand the above to say. >> >> If I understand you correctly, a reg under L80E is allowed to conflict >> with the laws. Thus the following reg is legal under L80E: >> >> Written bidding: Players make their calls by writing on the bidding pad, >> with the calls going anti-clockwise around the table. >Obviously this should not be allowed ;o) Should? But is it? >I was not present at Geneva, but Law 80 E and F are easy enough to understand: > >Law 80 E deals with Special _Conditions_ (for special circumstances) that >obviously fall within the framework of the regulations in the laws. That is to >_extend_ the Laws for circumstances that they are not written for. (On-line >bridge, bridge for seeing impaired, plays with screens, etc.) That is why my reg was for written bidding only. >Law 80F deals with _Supplementary_ (=additional) regulations. That is >regulations that the law makers did not think of or want to leave to the SO's. >These regulations are allowed as long as they don't contradict the LAWS. I think >a smoking regulation would be a good example. -- 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 Jul 18 04:24:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HINbi09906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:23:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web5503.mail.yahoo.com (web5503.mail.yahoo.com [216.115.106.186]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6HINVt09902 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:23:31 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20010717180754.20808.qmail@web5503.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.194.129.226] by web5503.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:07:54 PDT Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:07:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Tu Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question To: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > >On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate > >on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping > >some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, > >and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > > > >KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. > >The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) > >(1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required > >(2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or > >4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, > >or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > > OK, it seems clear that 4 cd major is not an issue and should not be alerted. But I'd like further clarification on whether systematically passing 1nt with the min *un*balanced hands (1444, 2452, 2425) needs an alert or not. Thanks, ===== Stephen Tu stephtu@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.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 Jul 18 04:37:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HIbbQ09937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:37:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HIbSt09928 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:37:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6HIZx901351 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005601c10eef$20ca8380$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107171546.IAA14820@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Wandering Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:25:16 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marvin French wrote: > > > From: "Michael Farebrother" > > > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I also do something that I (and not everyone) can do when going up for > > > water - I take my glasses off. > > > > Excellent idea, I am going to do the same, holding the glasses in my hand > > when I necessarily have to visit the john at other than break times. I > > don't drink water much. Water is for washing, not drinking. > > After what happened a couple weeks ago, I don't think I can agree with > the last. I played in the Hollywood Park regional on Tuesday, at > 10:30 and 3 (starting times my system just isn't used to anyway), > after visiting the office and getting some work done in the morning. > In the first session, I tried to drink several cups of coffee to help > me stay awake. The result was about a 52% game, culminating in a > round in which they bid an unmakable slam; however, I sleepily won my > ace at trick 10 and found myself endplayed into giving them the slam, > when a simple duck would have beaten them. > > In the second session, I switched to drinking water and we had a 68% > game. We would have won the event if I had beaten that slam in the > first session. Is everyone this thirsty? I usually drink nothing during a session, and don't notice any discomfort. I see that some people have bottled water at hand, surely a better solution than getting up at other than break times. Maybe we need a Gunga Din. Many years ago, before the current drug awareness, a pharmacist friend told me that 1/2 a ritalin pill would help greatly in focusing at the bridge table. I tried this a couple of times, and it seemed to work. Others at the time were trying "pep pills" without much success. My commonsense stepped in and told me not to go down this path. I mentioned the ritalin possibility to my doctor recently, during the time my February concussion was causing a big loss of focus at the table. He went thru the roof, which surprised me. Aren't kids taking an entire pill daily? So I tried Ginkgo Biloba, over the counter and unproven, which my doctor okayed. Focus gradually improved, but more likely because of my craniotomy than the Ginkgo. The jury is still out, with the verdict coming after the Toronto NABC. > > So I'm now convinced that water is definitely for drinking, and I'm > going to try to rely on it more than on coffee and see if it helps my > game. Adam, it was probably the absence of caffeine, not the presence of water, that improved your game. > Like Michael, I wouldn't appreciate restrictions on when I can > leave the table to get myself some water. A voluntary restriction, when sitting N/S at least, is to go in the direction of boards already played rather than toward unplayed boards. > > As for my glasses, I think I'm already not wearing them when I get up > to get a drink (or visit the men's room). The reason for this is that > I've reached a point where I have to take my glasses off at the table > in order to see the cards. I guess it's just a matter of time before > I'll have to get bifocals. SIGH . . . > Bifocals don't work for me, I have to have trifocals or those lenses with unstepped focusing (Varilux?). *The Bridge World* published an article in November 1969 by James R. Gregg, O. D., entitled "Visual Problems of Playing Bridge." He advocated large thin-edged frames, with good vertical height especially important. These let the eyes look all around without head movement, which is typical of bridge players. His ultimate lens solution is a trifocal with bottom lens focal distance set at the distance of cards in hand, a large mid-range lens focused at 28 to 36 inches, and a normal far-range lens. The mid-range focus is shorter for rubber bridge, longer for duplicate (dummy and played cards further away). Trifocals are also better for reading newspapers, maps, blueprints, and other mid-range items, I've found. For the computer monitor, I use a single lens focused at monitor distance, which works very well because the depth of field is sufficient for reading text that is closer (manuals, drafts, etc.) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California (At Toronto NABC July 19-28) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 04:37:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HIbc609938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:37:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HIbUt09930 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:37:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6HIZx901356; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:35:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005701c10eef$20fcde20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Burn" , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000301c10b7d$a7cf9020$a12a28c4@john> <017a01c10e93$f5c38f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <001d01c10e9c$02c5f7a0$738301d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:28:57 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > > Whereas this interpretation is certainly possible, I think that we need > to be a little careful in determining what constitutes "information" for > the purposes of Law 16. Laws 16 and 73 have to do with illegal > communication between partners; the "information" which we want to > prevent from being transmitted is information about the contents of > partner's hand. And, surely, reminders of special partnership agreements. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 04:57:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HIvcZ10682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:57:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HIvVt10673 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 04:57:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6HIu2905124 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006901c10ef1$ede37aa0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:46:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > > Indeed, the ACBL's definition of the "semi-forcing NT", which assumes > five-card major openings and calls for a pass with a balanced minimum, > is fairly new. In the original Announcement regs, "semi-forcing" meant only that opener could pass with a minimum 5-3-3-2 hand. That was changed in 1997 to "opener may pass with a balanced minimum." > In times gone by, semi-forcing NT was a feature of four-card major > systems, and rebidder passed only with a four-cards suit and a minimum. Not in any four-card system I am familiar with. Opener generally passes with a minimum 5-3-3-2 hand when playing four-card majors in the classic way. Only beginners rebid that five-card suit, and only Eric (AFAIK) would rebid in a 3-card suit. :)) > I still play this treatment occasionally; when I > do, I alert the pass as denying a five-card or longer holding. As everyone should, but few do. And "probably a sub-minimum opening" might be added by some. From what I have seen, many pros will open a four-card major only in third position, and only when the hand is so weak that rebidding after opening 1C/1D would be dangerous. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Toronto NABC July 19-28) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 05:13:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HJDYm11340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:13:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HJDOt11331 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:13:24 +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 f6HJAtY71300 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:10:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@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, 17 Jul 2001 15:12:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <3B5422F5.BFB23794@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@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 07:35 AM 7/17/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At some level, perhaps an extraordinary deep and subtle one, but some > > level nevertheless, the test in L15C -- "if any call differs in any way > > from the corresponding call in the first auction" -- can be considered > > to be redundant; it will always be the case. Recognizing this, we > > might rewrite L15C along the lines of: "If, during the auction period, > > the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not > > designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the > > auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated, and apply L16B > > forthwith." > >If we are going to change the laws, then why not simply >allow the board to be completed and apply L15A ? Herman would eliminate L15C entirely. That too would be a reasonable solution; it is another way to avoid requiring an innocent pair to play at a disadvantage, so it also works for me. >BTW, I did not find in L15 what happens when the mistake is >discovered during the play - it seems to me as if neither >L15C nor L15A applies ? L15A: "If players play a board..." The consensus interpretation seems to be that "play a board" means begin the "play period". But I suggest that that's *only* because of the contrast with L15C: "If, during the auction period..." Were L15C not there, I suspect we would interpret it to mean begin the auction, which is what Herman suggests. Easy enough to clarify: "If players have begun playing a board..." 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 Jul 18 05:25:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HJPK011803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:25:20 +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-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 f6HJP6t11794 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:25:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6HJMcT23358 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:22:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@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, 17 Jul 2001 15:24:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:49 AM 7/17/01, David wrote: >Hirsch Davis writes > >From: "alain gottcheiner" > > >> A recent AC in which I sat went one step farther (too far ?) : we > applied > >a > >> small PP to a player who admitted he realized quite quickly his > misbisd, > >> and did not correct it. Although there is no obligation to correct, we > >knew > >> he knew he could, and we felt he could well have declined it on > purpose, > >to > >> create the ensuing imbroglio (knowing the guy). Ask Herman for > details. > > >Getting caught up on e-mail, I just noticed this. A player received > a PP > >for a completely legal bid, because he did not change it when he > realized it > >was inadvertent? Oh well, I guess the theme goes well with the > thread on > >opting for an AAS. It seems that even legal calls are subject to > penalty > >these days, as long as a TD or AC feels our intentions were impure. > > Be fair, the situations are not comparable. In Alain's case the >played did nothing remote illegal, so a PP is totally inexcusable. In >the AAS case there is a question whether it was illegal. The player's >intentions are relevant insofar as they affect the legality of what he >does. On the contrary, the player who bid 7NT in the ArtAS thread did nothing that would appear to violate any law or regulation (I reject the argument of those who would interpret L74A2 so broadly as to cover that case; see the discussion in that thread). The PP for failure to correct was, I assume, justified by a regulation of the SO (most SOs have them) that mandates "playing to win". I don't like the PP, but then I don't like "playing to win" rules in the first place, precisely because they have effects like this. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 05:55:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HJtYw20853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:55:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6HJtQt20844 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 05:55:27 +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 f6HJqwY74596 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:52:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717154014.00af8950@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, 17 Jul 2001 15:54:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question In-Reply-To: <006901c10ef1$ede37aa0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:46 PM 7/17/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > Indeed, the ACBL's definition of the "semi-forcing NT", which assumes > > five-card major openings and calls for a pass with a balanced minimum, > > is fairly new. > >In the original Announcement regs, "semi-forcing" meant only that opener >could pass with a minimum 5-3-3-2 hand. That was changed in 1997 to >"opener >may pass with a balanced minimum." Good! To me, requiring a specific pattern, as opposed to "balanced hand", is illegally regulating matters of judgment. > > In times gone by, semi-forcing NT was a feature of four-card major > > systems, and rebidder passed only with a four-cards suit and a minimum. > >Not in any four-card system I am familiar with. Opener generally >passes with >a minimum 5-3-3-2 hand when playing four-card majors in the classic way. >Only beginners rebid that five-card suit, and only Eric (AFAIK) would >rebid >in a 3-card suit. :)) Certainly true; 99.9994% of four-card major players play non-forcing NTs and pass with any balanced minimum. Four-card majors with a semi-forcing NT is a truly rare method; I play it only very occasionally myself, and only with a very small number of partners who are even aware that such a method exists. Only when playing this way would I rebid a three-card suit with 5-3-3-2 (in a four-card major context). In this particular system, four-card majors are opened only with 12-14 HCP; that hand passes a 1NT response; any other hand rebids as over a forcing NT playing five-card majors. > > I still play this treatment occasionally; when I > > do, I alert the pass as denying a five-card or longer holding. > >As everyone should, but few do. And "probably a sub-minimum opening" might >be added by some. From what I have seen, many pros will open a four-card >major only in third position, and only when the hand is so weak that >rebidding after opening 1C/1D would be dangerous. Sounds a bit like an illegal pro trick. Do the pros' clients routinely pass the semi-forcing NT after having opened light in third with a five-card suit? Not allowed in the ACBL -- both members of a partnership must play the same system -- but would certainly explain the reluctance to alert! 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 Jul 18 06:12:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HKCUr21504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 06:12:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from jet.kar.net (root@jet.kar.net [195.178.131.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HKCLt21497 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 06:12:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk (35.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.35]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f6HK9nL63675 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:09:49 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <00a201c10efd$2cbbbb60$2382b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:15:07 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All! I found in my Low Book L88: "...when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or CHOICE of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60%...". According to the L15C a player has no legal right for his own choice to_play_or_not_to_play the board. If he demonstrably made his own choice the avg+ not be granted to him. Sergey -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 06:51:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6HKpMN22943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 06:51:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6HKpFt22937 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 06:51:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f6HKmaT27116 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:48:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010717153241.00a08860@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 15:53:08 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <3B545720.6090907@interia.pl> References: <3.0.6.32.20010717083618.007cac10@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:17 PM 7/17/01 +0200, Konrad wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> If you see the intention of the Law, how can you be astonished that >>someone would like to punish someone for taking an action knowingly >>designed to violate that intention? > >Because I am convinced that the Law should be applied "as is". I hate that >"actually we meant >something different" approach. If the Law is broken then admit to an >error, fix it, but don't >punish players who play by the rules. I understand and respect this position. But surely you see that there are many people [including myself, FWIW] who do not adopt this position. My position is that if one sees the reason for the law being what it is, and agrees with the value of such a law, then it is wrong for one to seek to subvert that value by manipulating shortcomings in the wording of the law. If the enforcers of the law know that the person is deliberately subverting the law, I think they are fully justified in exploiting loopholes in other laws that allow them to punish the offender. If I wish to issue a PP to someone who bids 7NT in the example situation under L90 because L90 uses ambiguous phrases such as "inconveniences other contestants", then how can he complain? Can he say "but obviously L90 wasn't _intended_ to punish people for doing what I'm doing"? Of course he cannot--because he knows that L15c wasn't intended to allow a player to get a free 60% by making a ridiculous bid just to guarantee that the auction is different. He can choose his poison--if he wishes the laws to be enforced according to the spirit of the law, then he will not bid 7NT and I will not fine him. If he wishes to exploit loopholes in his favor to subvert the law, then I will feel free to exploit loopholes in other laws to punish him. But, again, to put this on a simpler level--I know you like the laws to be enforced as written regardless of the intention. I and many other do not. I will not be astonished that you don't want to penalize the 7NT bidder--please do not be astonished that I do. >BTW I think it is very hard to codify "normal actions" so I just vote for >shooting that ugly >creature called 15C. Offenders get A-, NOs A+, period. I disagree completely, of course. In many circumstances, a real bridge result can be obtained with no significant UI problems or any other difficulties. I find this a consummation devoutly to be wished. I am willing to let the TD handle the odd cases where no such result is possible, and I am willing to punish players who make it impossible deliberately. >What about the argument "let's play bridge"? I think that it is a very >good idea to have different >law books for different levels. Anyway what is going on in a local >duplicate has almost nothing in >common with what happens during the WC; so let's acknoledge this and not >pretend that >we are playing according to the same set of rules in both events. I don't think it matters here. From what I can see, there are many high-level experts who want to have the game settled by playing bridge, and who therefore ignore revokes and all sorts of things to preserve the bridge-playing. I think there are many experts who wouldn't even think of bidding 7NT in this situation--and many players at the local club as well. I know of experts and local players who just want to win, and if they could somehow arrange to get A+ on every board without playing a single card they'd do it. It takes all kinds. >>If the government wrote a law designed >>to protect the environment, but leaves a loophole that could allow one to >>increase pollution in a way not anticipated, would you be astonished if the >>authorities tried to find some way to punish them for trying to use >>the loophole to subvert the intention? > >Most emphatically: yes. In Poland it is forbidden to advertise alcohol. So >the companies do some >sort of clever tricks to get around this: > >1) apart from regular beer they produce alcohol-free beer and produce >spots that advertise only this >alcohol-free beer >2) a company that sells the vodka "Bols" buillt a yacht called "Bols" and >founded a sister-firm that >hires this boat for trips; the gag is that the words "boat" and "vodka" >are very similar in Polish >(the adds go "boat Bolls - the best boat"). >3) a company that sells the vodka "Zytnia" found a tiny village in Poland >with exactlly that name and >organises a folk-festival there (the bilboards say "one Zytnia; one >festival"). > >... and many, many more. > >Although I don't drink alcohol at all my heart is fully with these >companies; they haven't been punished >so far and I would be astonished if there were. My heart is fully against these companies, and I would be astonished if they were punished only because the authorities are seldom clever enough or determined enough to try. [I assume this is no different in Poland than in the US.] But I'll bet there are authorities who _want_ to punish them for such things. If a law is a bad law, campaign to get it changed rather than exploiting it. [If everyone else exploits it then I feel more sympathy for you if you do, too, to preserve equality.] If an otherwise good law has a loophole, tell the authorities about it, don't exploit it. If the authorities continue to let the law go knowing the loophole is there, then, again, I feel more sympathy for exploting it. {I did this myself in a computer baseball league I play in. The rules were badly written, and I announced to the rulesmakers what the loophole was and what having it was dangerous. They declined to change the rule, so I then exploited it exactly as I had described, and didn't feel guilty. I had also told my opponents, so they could manipulate it against me in exactly the same way.} >Konrad Ciborowski >Krakow, Poland Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 11:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I1gbk09900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:42:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.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 f6I1gSt09891 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6I1cV529368 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3B54206B.9FD07019@village.uunet.be> References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B517367.37D990C1@village.uunet.be> <3B54206B.9FD07019@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:34:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:24 PM +0200 7/17/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >Are you of the variety of posters on blml who are happy to >disagree ? >Or just of the variety that disagreeing with Herman does not >count ? Um, the former, I think. You've been dealing with the laws and their interpretation much longer than I have, so for me to place myself in the second group would be fatuous. OTOH, I've never been one to fear disagreeing with authority. :-) "Question the statement of Eminent Authority, out of general contrariness." -- Mark Clifton, _Eight Keys to Eden_. >I agree with you that L15C does not give the option to the >new pair to refuse to play, and this was something I >previously believed to be the case. So in that sense, I >have changed my view. I shall henceforth no longer tell the >NOs how far the auction went (and stay at the table somechat >longer than it originally went so as not to give it away. >That way, the 7NT tactic will not be without risk. Excellent! :-) >Well, but L15C does exist, and it does say "differs in any >way". You do understand that a 1Cl opening by a strong >clubber is not the same as by an acol player ? And that >L15C would be used to award A+ to NOs in that case ? I do understand that calls can have different meanings in different systems. But if the players in question are playing essentially the *same* system, I don't think one's call differs "in any way" from the other's - unless their styles are *very, very* different. > > > I don't want a director to > > >have to judge if my bid is the same as someone else's. It's a director's job to use his judgement where that is required. Why should a player have any power to determine whether he should or should not do so? >Now I am no longer concerned with the player who just does >not want to play the board because he is facing Meckwell, >and 60% will be very useful. > >I am concerned with Meckwell playing Zia, and Meckwell >(correctly) telling the TD that the Pass that had previously >been called by Bob Hamman is not the same Pass as the one >Meckstroth has bid, and that Zia knows the difference. > >In that sense, I do allow Meckstroth to say to the Director >: whatever call I make will have a sufficiently important >difference of meaning that I'd rather take A+ straight away. But what provision of law allows you to do this? >Well, maybe we don't, anymore. >But I would like to see you deal with someone who now bids >his second choice - just to hope to get a different bid that >the previous one. Well, not entirely, anyway. :-) I don't know what I'd do. A player might do that. I'm not sure that it would be ethical. I'm not sure that it wouldn't, either. It doesn't *feel* right to me, but making rulings, as I'm sure you know better than I, isn't about feelings, it's about the laws. I think I've come 'round to agree with the position that a different call requires an adjustment, and that's the end of it. But I can see there might be times I wouldn't like it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO1To8L2UW3au93vOEQK/HQCg/Bg0+6cjVG4jNgdn//hsxNKbm7wAn1Bp 4kGREeJYRNJYl355YKyhuDgY =gnjE -----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 Jul 18 12:02:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I22Hs10469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:02:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.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 f6I22Bt10462 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:02:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6I1wN508420 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:58:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8Y3xGDD0mDV7EwLs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> <8Y3xGDD0mDV7EwLs@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 21:52:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:12 PM +0100 7/17/01, David Stevenson wrote: > >If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* > >of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not > >say so? > > ???? > > It does: it says differs in *any* way. Let me quote the whole sentence, and put the emphasis on a different word: "If any *call* differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." Do you see now why I had a problem? If the call in question is 1C by the first player, and 1H by the second, then they differ, obviously. It's not so obvious to me that 1C (Acol) and 1C (Precision) are different calls, but I've come 'round, as I said, to accept that they are. In fact, what I've read here leads me to conclude that if I were directing (unlikely :) I would be tempted to rule the board unplayable *whatever* calls were made. Unless I'm convinced that both players are playing exactly the same system, or nearly so. And even then, differences in style would make the calls "differ in any way". So I'm wondering if there's *any* situation in which it is right to allow the board to be played. 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/AwUBO1TtkL2UW3au93vOEQLP4ACgq1gnH33rAPOzYTnYwAJHGgYJggYAnRZ6 FxenobaJtrCGe3YBi8MGkd/T =/KUe -----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 Jul 18 12:12:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I2CLJ10752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:12:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.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 f6I2CFt10745 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:12:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6I28R512131 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107171434.KAA16888@freenet10.carleton.ca> References: <200107171434.KAA16888@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:04:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:34 AM -0400 7/17/01, A. L. Edwards wrote: >Next, tell him that appeal committees, being "democratic", are >never wrong, no matter how bad the ruling they make is. :-) Why should the teacher want to lie to the student? :-) 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/AwUBO1Tv7L2UW3au93vOEQLytQCfSsHuZnCBE937LW9xvaxREKaDfMsAn0DU 5HwxzErrk6s4gDLU2Lff42KR =dN3l -----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 Jul 18 12:12:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I2CUO10760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:12:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6I2COt10754 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6I28V512161 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:08:33 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <18.f62afb8.2885ac36@aol.com> References: <18.f62afb8.2885ac36@aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:08:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:56 AM -0400 7/17/01, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >I maintain that a >highly litiginous society is one which distrusts its structure, and the >ability and performance of its officials. As indeed we should, on the evidence. :-) 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/AwUBO1Tv8b2UW3au93vOEQK6KgCghsMqahF6ZWeX5A8yX2YFF4SUz2UAn3eG aVwMcymWkymHvRm8YTpJ4vQC =Gh9v -----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 Jul 18 15:24:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I5O5817476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:24:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I5Nwt17469 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:23:58 +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 f6I5MYa08765 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:22:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002301c10f49$71596dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717154014.00af8950@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:13:21 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin wrote: > > >From what I have seen, many pros will open a four-card > >major only in third position, and only when the hand is so weak that > >rebidding after opening 1C/1D would be dangerous. > > Sounds a bit like an illegal pro trick. Do the pros' clients routinely > pass the semi-forcing NT after having opened light in third with a > five-card suit? Don't remember, I'll have to watch for that. > Not allowed in the ACBL -- both members of a > partnership must play the same system -- but would certainly explain > the reluctance to alert! Indeed. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California (At Toronto NABC July 19-28) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 18:05:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I85CC29600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:05:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I853t29592 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:05:05 +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; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:04:00 +0200 Message-ID: <004101c10f60$38dd7880$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid><007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona><5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk><018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:04:08 +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 f6I857t29594 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) > Rik Terveen writes > >From: David Stevenson > > >> Before I make a fool of myself again, please can you confirm what I > >> understand the above to say. > >> > >> If I understand you correctly, a reg under L80E is allowed to conflict > >> with the laws. Thus the following reg is legal under L80E: > >> > >> Written bidding: Players make their calls by writing on the bidding pad, > >> with the calls going anti-clockwise around the table. > > >Obviously this should not be allowed ;o) > > Should? But is it? Not as I see it. > > >I was not present at Geneva, but Law 80 E and F are easy enough to understand: > > > >Law 80 E deals with Special _Conditions_ (for special circumstances) that > >obviously fall within the framework of the regulations in the laws. That is to > >_extend_ the Laws for circumstances that they are not written for. (On-line > >bridge, bridge for seeing impaired, plays with screens, etc.) > > That is why my reg was for written bidding only. And that's why I wrote obviously within the framework of the law. > > >Law 80F deals with _Supplementary_ (=additional) regulations. That is > >regulations that the law makers did not think of or want to leave to the SO's. > >These regulations are allowed as long as they don't contradict the LAWS. I think > >a smoking regulation would be a good example. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- I see 80 E as a way to give an SO the possibility to extend the Laws to circumstances that the Laws themselves do not deal with while keeping the spirit of the Laws intact. I don't think it is a good idea for the WBF to specify regulations for how to play bridge when all players (or only one) are blind. I do think that it is a good idea for an SO to come up with special regulations when they organize a tournament for vision impaired. 80 E gives them the possibility to write regulations for these special conditions. (In a similar way, the use of bidding boxes creates a special condition, but that case is less clear as an example.) Law 80F could be used if an SO wants all players to dress funny during the Carnaval in The Netherlands. But 80F prevents them from giving extra tricks to the pair that consumed more beer. ;o) 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 Wed Jul 18 18:39:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I8dcW00726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:39:38 +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 f6I8bVt00591 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:37:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 472882A4CBE; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:34:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 1B6582A4C92 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:34:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 19747 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2001 08:34:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 18 Jul 2001 08:34:47 -0000 Message-ID: <3B554965.3040408@interia.pl> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:31:33 +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] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3.0.6.32.20010717083618.007cac10@eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20010717153241.00a08860@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: X-EMID: 694acacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > At 05:17 PM 7/17/01 +0200, Konrad wrote: > > >> Grant Sterling wrote: >> >>> If you see the intention of the Law, how can you be astonished that >>> someone would like to punish someone for taking an action knowingly >>> designed to violate that intention? >> >> >> Because I am convinced that the Law should be applied "as is". I hate >> that "actually we meant >> something different" approach. If the Law is broken then admit to an >> error, fix it, but don't >> punish players who play by the rules. > > > I understand and respect this position. But surely you see that there > are many people [including myself, FWIW] who do not adopt this > position. My position is that if one sees the reason for the law being > what it is, and agrees with the value of such a law, then it is wrong > for one to seek to subvert that value by manipulating shortcomings in > the wording of the law. If the enforcers of the law know that the > person is deliberately subverting the law, I think they are fully > justified in exploiting loopholes in other laws that allow them to > punish the offender. If I wish to issue a PP to someone who bids 7NT > in the example situation under L90 because L90 uses ambiguous phrases > such as "inconveniences other contestants", then how can he complain? > Can he say "but obviously L90 wasn't _intended_ to punish people for > doing what I'm doing"? Of course he cannot--because he knows that L15c > wasn't intended to allow a player to get a free 60% by making a > ridiculous bid just to guarantee that the auction is different. He can > choose his poison--if he wishes the laws to be enforced according to > the spirit of the law, then he will not bid 7NT and I will not fine > him. If he wishes to exploit loopholes in his favor to subvert the > law, then I will feel free to exploit loopholes in other laws to > punish him. > But, again, to put this on a simpler level--I know you like the laws > to be enforced as written regardless of the intention. I and many > other do not. I will not be astonished that you don't want to penalize > the 7NT bidder--please do not be astonished that I do. OK, I won't. Just merely surprised. :-) It is obvious to me that we are made from completely different clay. I recall that we differ not only in this case; I recall a discussion mechanical laws vs. equity-based laws plus several other minor issues and we were always on two sides of the fence. So perhaps you might be "astonished" that there is something about I what might agree with you [well, to a certain extent, at least :-)]. > If a law is a bad law, campaign to get it changed rather than > exploiting it. [If everyone else exploits it then I feel more sympathy > for you if you do, too, to preserve equality.] If an otherwise good > law has a loophole, tell the authorities about it, don't exploit it. > If the authorities continue to let the law go knowing the loophole is > there, then, again, I feel more sympathy for exploting it. {I did this > myself in a computer baseball league I play in. The rules were badly > written, and I announced to the rulesmakers what the loophole was and > what having it was dangerous. They declined to change the rule, so I > then exploited it exactly as I had described, and didn't feel guilty. > I had also told my opponents, so they could manipulate it against me > in exactly the same way.} If the law is good law and ideed in some circumstances it was exploited in a way that was very hard to forsee than I feel more sympathy for authorities who try to punish those who exploits it in a "your loophole vs. my loophole" war. Some time ago we discussed the case where midway through the board declarer started to play with quitted tricks. Someone then suggested that we should wheel out L74B1 to punish the NOs who also failed to notice. I objected to ithe idea as I firmly believe that this is not what the L74B1 is about; I am not a BLer although many people think that I am [because, e.g. I always call the TD instead of playing out the hand when my claim is contested :-)]. But the possibility of opening 7NT to get A+ is not a loophole to me; it is a LOOPHOLE of the size of an elephant ; I recall that this possibility sprang to mind about 3 seconds after I first time read this marvelous piece of legislation. I don't rate myself that high to think that Larry Cohen and myself were the only people in this world who discovered that way of getting an A+ for free. So it *should* really have been obious to the lawmakers. They failed to see it; well, even experts sometimes play the king first holding AQ10xx - K9xx for whatever reason (time pressure, fatigue etc.); we all have blind spots from time to time. But my rule of thumb is: if you play the king first and find North with Jxxx then shut up and say nothing about partner's bidding no matter how moronic it was. Our bridge authorities made a mistake of a similar caliber (perhaps it was Friday and bar was closing in 5 minutes) and I firmly believe that they should say "sorry, partner" and fix it in the next edition. Trying to punish players who want to take advantage of this eggregious error (I'd call it "irrational, wild or gambling") is, err..., a faux pas, although my fingers are trying to type a more rude expression. So the difference between us in this case is very much about what we call a good law and a bad law. To me a law with loopholes that can be seen at once is ex definitione a bad law; and in case of bad laws I don't feel the need to campaign or tell the authorities to change it. I just feel they really should have known in the first place so I I exploit it and don't feel guilty at all (and have absolutely no hard feelings against people who do it playing against me). Best regards, Konrad ---------------------------------------------------- Skradziono portret Lenina! http://wiadomosci.interia.pl/kultura/news?inf=114506 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 19:22:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9LaZ02311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:21:36 +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 f6I9LTt02304 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:21:29 +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 LAA22249; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:18:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA26408; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:18:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010718112354.0083e350@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:23:54 +0200 To: Stephen Tu , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question In-Reply-To: <20010716193607.21135.qmail@web5501.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:36 16/07/01 -0700, Stephen Tu wrote: >On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate >on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping >some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, >and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. > >KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. >The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) >(1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required >(2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or >4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, >or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. > >Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough >to warrant an alert of the pass? AG : your agreements are contradictory. Either you play a 5-card majors-based system, and agreement (2) can't hold (you allow yourself the very uncommon 4-card suit, but partner doesn't know it), or you don't, and your card should read 'K-S with occasional 4-card major' or the like. Playing a 5-card majors system, and alerting at some point of the sequence to say your partner may have a 4-card suit, will be considered by most directors as a hidden agreement - thus subject to penalty. ragards, Alaibn. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 19:35:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9ZOd02893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:35:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f6I9ZEt02880 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:35:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15MnhB-000Nbd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:32:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:51:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@127.0.0.1> <3B5422F5.BFB23794@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@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 07:35 AM 7/17/01, Herman wrote: >>BTW, I did not find in L15 what happens when the mistake is >>discovered during the play - it seems to me as if neither >>L15C nor L15A applies ? >L15A: "If players play a board..." The consensus interpretation seems >to be that "play a board" means begin the "play period". Playing a board does not mean start the play period. Playing a board means putting the board on the table, taking out the hands, bidding, playing, putting the hands back, scoring and telling partner what he did wrong. That is playing a board. Well, it has been for the last thirty years! -- 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 Jul 18 19:35:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9ZM302891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:35:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I9ZBt02875 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:35:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15MnhB-000Nbb-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:32:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 02:45:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@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 08:49 AM 7/17/01, David wrote: >> Be fair, the situations are not comparable. In Alain's case the >>played did nothing remote illegal, so a PP is totally inexcusable. In >>the AAS case there is a question whether it was illegal. The player's >>intentions are relevant insofar as they affect the legality of what he >>does. >On the contrary, the player who bid 7NT in the ArtAS thread did nothing >that would appear to violate any law or regulation (I reject the >argument of those who would interpret L74A2 so broadly as to cover that >case; see the discussion in that thread). This is hardly an answer, but if you want I shall be pedantically accurate. There are some people who consider that the player may have acted illegally by bidding 7NT. In Alain's example, no-one did anything that could be illegal. Thus they are not comparable. For people that have made up their minds that the 7NT bid was not illegal, the two situations are comparable since in neither case was there any illegal bid. Since I have argued that the 7NT bid may have been illegal, and am still waiting for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I am in the camp of people who do not think the situations comparable. OK? -- 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 Jul 18 19:36:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9aY902959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:36:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I9aQt02949 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:36:27 +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 LAA24264; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:33:30 +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 LAA05586; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:33:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010718113853.00830470@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:38:53 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Wandering In-Reply-To: <00b101c10e83$49769f60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200107141605.JAA24541@emerald.oz.net> <005501c10dce$2b9b32e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <200107161951.PAA11139@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:37 16/07/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Michael Farebrother" > >> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >> > >> >> I also do something that I (and not everyone) can do when going up for >> water - I take my glasses off. AG : not a bad idea - in principle. I'm a rare combination - a presbytic astigmatic obese. If I tried that, I would bump into the nearest table with worrying frequency, causing all sorts of problems to guys who have water beakers on their tables :-). Anyway, in Belgium, the 'large avenue between rows' policy is often used (and you thought it copuldn't be a good thing to lack large audiences !), and it usually is possible to wander between the tables without peeking at the cards. I go to the bar or the john more often than most of you would, and I would feel offended if somebody suggested I use this to peek at the hands - in fact, it happened twice AFAIK, and in both cases, the guy had a long and hard time with the TD. Perhaps, apart from an optometrist, we would need a volumetrist (for bladders) and a dietetician (for water consumption) ? If it sounds ridiculous, I put it right. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 19:47:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9l2P03387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:47:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I9kst03377 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:46:54 +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 LAA25693; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:43:58 +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 LAA11595; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:44:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010718114921.00828410@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:49:21 +0200 To: "Laval Dubreuil" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) 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 18:53 16/07/01 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > > North (dealer) > S: J 10 x > H: A K 10 x x > D: K x > C: A x x > West East >S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >H: Q x x H: ----- >D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >C: x x x C: Q 10 > South > S: x x > H: J x x x x > D: J > K: K J x x x > >All vul. the auction was: > N E S W > 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > P 4S All P > >The TD was called after East bid 4S. He told the auction >continue and E-W may call later if there is any problem. >4S made (2C and 1 D). > >When called again, the TD ruled 4H making (2S and 1 D). >N-S asked for an appeal. The AC allowed 4S making. > >The TD, one of my student director, is very frustrated. >He lost his first appeal.... > >I told him I would have rule like him: >1) All agree there was a long hesition (longer than the normal > break after a jump). >2) E had other alternatives than 4H (P is one). >3) The 4S bid may have been suggested by the hesitation. >4) This infraction gives a bad score to N-S. > >Your opinion would be welcome. AG : all of this is IOTTMCO. West could hardly be thinking of doubling, with limited trump length on this bidding, and facing a potentially weak partner (who needs a strong hand to overcall 1S nowadays ?). So a bid is what is suggested by his tempo. We usually are dealing with cases where the action choosen after the suggestion would be choosen by many without it, and ask ourselves 'is this still allowed now, ie are there *any* logical alternatives ?'. In this case, I think that given the problem, very few would bid 4S. The bid was more that suggested by the tempo, it was caused by it. The offense is more serious than in most UI cases. Best regards, and commiserations to your student. 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 Jul 18 19:48:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9mBL03447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:48:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I9m4t03441 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:48:05 +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; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:47:01 +0200 Message-ID: <00f701c10f6e$9cfc8aa0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> <+4VxuLD+mDV7EwIG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:47:08 +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 f6I9m7t03442 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > Konrad Ciborowski writes > > > Here is the relevant fragment from the "Bridge World" (I'99, > >"Losing At Lille"). > > > >+-------------------------------------------------------------------+ > > A few more flat boards followed. Then Bobby Levin and Brad Moss > >arrived at the table with a director in tow. The movement was a modified > >scrambled Mitchell (every pair would play every other pair) and > >Levin-Moss had started the deal at the wrong table. The director > >informed us to begin the auction but if any call deviated from what > >Levin-Moss had already seen then we'd get an above average-plus and > >they'd get average minus. This seemed ridiculous but we had no choice > >except to proceed as ordered. I picked up > > > >K95 > >AJ109 > >7 > >Q10764 > > > >It went two passes to me and I knew I could open (say) 7NT and receive > >an average-plus. I supposes that's against the spirit of the game but > >that what would Edgar have said, I wonder [perhaps that, in the context > >of this foolish procedure, the Director was at fault in not instructing > >that participants to take normal actions - Ed]. > > This seems an oversimplification. Either opening 7NT is legal or it > isn't. My view, expressed elsewhere, is that it depends on whether it > is a breach of L74A2 or not. I think that what the TD should be doing > is to make a suitable warning once we are happy we know the legalities. > It is nice to read about L74A2 and the like. In my opinion it is best to read the Scope of the Laws (which I regard as the explanatory text added to any Law): 'The Laws are designed to define correct procedure, and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty graciously, or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage.' In this case, there was a departure of correct procedure (wrong pair sitting at the table). The Laws are primarily designed as redress for damage [obviously caused by the departure of correct procedure]. That means that if you try to play 'normal bridge' and got damaged because of the fact that the deal was not the same anymore (opponents know more than you), you're entitled to redress. If you damage yourself by bidding 7NT, the damage is caused by your own unwillingness to follow the spirit of the game and not by the departure of correct procedure and the consequences are your own. Rik P.S. I wonder what a player would say if he is the only one to bid 7NT, the director stops the auction, 7NT turns out to make and he only gets 60%. IMHO he's entitled to his top as well as to the bottom that he is more likely to get. ;o) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 19:54:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6I9sEj03709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:54:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6I9s7t03702 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA29007; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:48:00 +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 LAA15825; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:51:26 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010718115623.008318c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:56:23 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717083432.00a92450@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:47 17/07/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:53 PM 7/16/01, Laval wrote: > >> North (dealer) >> S: J 10 x >> H: A K 10 x x >> D: K x >> C: A x x >> West East >>S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x >>H: Q x x H: ----- >>D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x >>C: x x x C: Q 10 >> South >> S: x x >> H: J x x x x >> D: J >> K: K J x x x >> >>All vul. the auction was: >> N E S W >> 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) >> P 4S All P >I find the "opposite situation" test useful in cases like these. Here >I ask myself whether I would have been comfortable adjusting the score >had West passed in a nanosecond and East subsequently passed. I'm >doubtful about that one AG : you shouldn't. Passing in a split second after a skip bid conveys a huge amount of UI. According to previous posts on this list, only tempi of about 6 to 20 seconds would be considered as normal. Evey tempo outside this range conveys much UI, and you should rule severely should a UI problem happen afterwards. I suppose the words 'very long hesitation' mean more than this). In the split-second case (nanosecond seems excessive, doesn't it ?), I would rule against EW *too*. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 21:29:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IBSOd07473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:28:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6IBSGt07467 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:28:17 +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, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:13 +0200 Message-ID: <001a01c10f7c$9c710b20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: <20010716210604.5F3E52A5199@nyx.poczta.fm> <+4VxuLD+mDV7EwIG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00f701c10f6e$9cfc8aa0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:27:21 +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 f6IBSJt07469 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What happens if one chooses to bid 7NT? First we go to LAW 15C: 'C. Discovered during Auction If, during the auction period, the Director discovers that a contestant is playing a board not designated for him to play in the current round, he shall cancel the auction, ensure that the correct contestants are seated and that they are informed of their rights both now and at future rounds. A second auction begins. Players must repeat calls they made previously. If any call differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction, the Director shall cancel the board. Otherwise, play continues normally. ' The auction is not the same: The director shall cancel the board and we get to Law 12C1 to give an adjusted score: '12C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.' If a player makes a deliberate attempt to prevent a normal result on the board, and it turns out that indeed no normal result can be obtained, it makes the player partially at fault for not obtaining a normal result. 'Partially at fault' translates in a 50% score. A bid of 7NT is a deliberate attempt to prevent a normal result on the board, thus it would give a 50% score. Rik P.S. It is important to establish that the player deliberately attempted to prevent a normal result. When the player comes up with a 7NT bid, it is not very difficult to do so. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 21:32:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IBWPG07637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:32:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IBWGt07623 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:32:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6IBTjZ29353 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:29:45 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:29 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010718114921.00828410@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > > AG : all of this is IOTTMCO. West could hardly be thinking of doubling, > with limited trump length on this bidding, and facing a potentially weak > partner (who needs a strong hand to overcall 1S nowadays ?). So a bid is > what is suggested by his tempo. Many players do keep a vulnerable 1S overcall at reasonable strength. However, the jump to 4H often just shows a 5 card suit and an addiction to LOTT. Theoretically pard can hold a 2344 17 count on at the point where he first gets a chance to bid. There a certainly plenty of hands on which a double would be borderline. I still think it more likely he would be considering 4S but it must be closer than you imply. > In this case, I think that given the problem, very few would bid 4S. The > bid was more that suggested by the tempo, it was caused by it. The > offense is more serious than in most UI cases. If East told me that his partner "usually bids one more after hesitating unless he was thinking of doubling"* I might still adjust without some corroborating evidence but I wouldn't think the 4S bid anything other than an unsuccessful attempt to abide by East's ethical obligations. * This statement would be true if I were the partner, those who play with me regularly are probably aware of it and it must take it into account when trying to work out what the UI suggests. It might be a deliberate attempt to take advantage of UI (serious offence), it might not - I have no evidence either way in the actual case (although the AC ruling inclines me to believe they accepted an argument on the above lines, mostly because I can't believe they thought pass wasn't an LA). 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 Jul 18 22:09:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IC8WS15167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:08:32 +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-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 f6IC8Gt15089 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:08:17 +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 f6IC5lA86711 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:05:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010718074731.00aeec10@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, 18 Jul 2001 08:07:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@127.0.0.1> <3B5422F5.BFB23794@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@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 7/17/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >L15A: "If players play a board..." The consensus interpretation seems > >to be that "play a board" means begin the "play period". > > Playing a board does not mean start the play period. > > Playing a board means putting the board on the table, taking out the >hands, bidding, playing, putting the hands back, scoring and telling >partner what he did wrong. That is playing a board. > > Well, it has been for the last thirty years! I'd have thought so too, but, as Herman pointed out, that doesn't work very well in the context of L15. L15A: "If players play a board..." L15B: "If any player plays a board..." L15C: "If, during the auction period..." Thus if we interpret "play a board" in the normal way, L15 offers no guidance as to what happens when a mis-move is discovered in mid-play. A number of posts in this thread seem to have taken for granted that when that happens, L15A-B applies. I'm not sure whether they're reading the words in the law that way or taking an inference about the presumed intent of the lawmakers, but, in either case, unless you assume that the writers of the law deliberately decided not to write any law to cover this case, it would seem to be the only reasonable way to interpret what they did write. Moreover, as Steve pointed out, the Definitions section in TFLB gives four different definitions of "play". The "normal" meaning of "play a board", as set forth by David, uses definition #4. The interpretation that allows L15 to work in all mis-move situations uses definition #3. Without context, that makes both interpretations appear to be valid, allowing us to choose the one that makes sense in the context of this particular law. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 22:22:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ICMJE20305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:22:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ICM2t20224 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:22:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA27947; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:19:32 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 18 14:18:09 2001 +0200 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K62V92OQVW0093BG@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:19:10 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:17:28 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:19:08 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: "'Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8BF@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 > > What happens if one chooses to bid 7NT? > P.S. It is important to establish that the player > deliberately attempted to prevent a normal result. When the > player comes up with a 7NT bid, it is not very difficult to do so. Still not enough? Let me elaborate on this problem: a) Two pairs are seated and north opens on his turn with pass. Now east discovers he is seated at the wrong table. Right pair takes its seats and after TD interruption (well seen editor of the Bridge World: the TD should instruct the pairs to continue normally) the auction goes pass by North and 7NT by east doubled by south. In my opinion the TD at that table should interrupt the play, take east from the table, ask him for his reasons to bid 7NT and with the expected answer given should cancel the board and give 0% - 60% in a pairs event and I don't know what in a teams event. Once more the floor to the hawks who give NS 100% on this board. Kojak used the word 'litiginous' and then complains about those not speaking English fluently. I am not talking about the possibility that it should be 'litigious' (that is were I found a meaning for after having forced my whole office to support me in solving my ignorance) but about his misplaced trust in people to understand what he wants to say. Try 'apple' and 'nose'. This example has not a litigi(n)ous source, it is to show you that the TD has a responsibility to let our sport be played in accordance with the laws, but not in the narrow minded 'this is what it means and I don't have a choice' way. When a good TD has the feeling that something goes wrong he better thinks twice. Educating TD's one of my statements is that when after a ruling the players start looking amazed the TD better checks his ruling once more. If a TD can explain me, as member of the AC, why he took such a decision, I would feel very happy and even if I have to change that decision, I like such people on the playing floor. It probably leads to a note in my lawbook. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 22:47:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ICkcu27693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:46:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6ICkOt27630 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:46:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6IChsA89030 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:43:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010718081931.00ab42d0@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, 18 Jul 2001 08:45:29 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010718115623.008318c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717083432.00a92450@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 05:56 AM 7/18/01, alain wrote: >At 08:47 17/07/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >At 06:53 PM 7/16/01, Laval wrote: > > > >> North (dealer) > >> S: J 10 x > >> H: A K 10 x x > >> D: K x > >> C: A x x > >> West East > >>S: Q x x S: A K 9 x x > >>H: Q x x H: ----- > >>D: A x x x D: Q 10 9 x x x > >>C: x x x C: Q 10 > >> South > >> S: x x > >> H: J x x x x > >> D: J > >> K: K J x x x > >> > >>All vul. the auction was: > >> N E S W > >> 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) > >> P 4S All P > >I find the "opposite situation" test useful in cases like these. Here > >I ask myself whether I would have been comfortable adjusting the score > >had West passed in a nanosecond and East subsequently passed. I'm > >doubtful about that one > >AG : you shouldn't. Passing in a split second after a skip bid conveys a >huge amount of UI. According to previous posts on this list, only tempi of >about 6 to 20 seconds would be considered as normal. Evey tempo outside >this range conveys much UI, and you should rule severely should a UI >problem happen afterwards. I agree. >I suppose the words 'very long hesitation' mean more than this). In the >split-second case (nanosecond seems excessive, doesn't it ?), I would rule >against EW *too*. I used the word "doubtful" because if the situation came before me as an AC member, I'm not at all sure that it would occur to me to consider 4S a logical alternative to passing, given the 1S bid. Contrast this situation with one where the auction has gone 1H-2D-4H-P-P-4S. Now, if W had passed in a flash, I would disallow a pass by E without qualm, whereas if W had huddled at length, I would find myself sympathetic to an E who argued that, having bid 2D rather than 1S the first time, he had no LA to bidding out his pattern, as he obviously intended to do all along. In the original problem, I not only adjust back to 4H, but give serious consideration to penalizing E for a flagrant violation of L73C. I do not expect players to understand and conform to the strictures of L16A, but I do expect them, at minimum, to take the same action they would have taken without the UI, and I don't think E has done so here, based on the above analysis. Had he planned in advance to bid 4S on the actual auction, he would surely have bid 2D the first time. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 18 23:40:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IDd5v10797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:39:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.de (mailout00.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IDcot10729 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:38:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout00.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15MrUz-0007YB-04; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:36:21 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.80.217.168]) by fmrl06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15MrUu-2GUcEqC; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:36:16 +0200 Message-ID: <3B5590A7.73C755F5@vwalther.de> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:35:35 +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 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? New Laws References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@127.0.0.1> 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 If we are going to discuss a better law... I have some Problems with Law 15 C to. 1.) Suppose you hear of the bidding of a special board at another table. (For example: 1NT-Pass-2H...). You tell the TD what has happend. According to L 16 B the TD will not allow you to play the board. Especially he will have to make a dicision before the auction of that boards starts at your table. It is impossible for the TD to have a look to the auction and decide afterwards whether the recieved information was of importance. Now you hear the same auction at your own table made by the wrong opp's. You are knowing much more because you see their CC's. But eventually you will be allowed to play the board. 2.) Suppose you have the same bidding with slightly different meanings at your table. For example against the wrong opp's 1NT (15-18), all pass, afterwards 1NT(15-17), all pass against the correct opponents. The TD will probably allow to play the board according to 15 C because the bidding is the same and the information you recieved from the first bidding is of no importance. But if the bidding starts 1NT(15-17)-pass-2H (transfer) the first time and 1NT(15-17)-pass-2S(natural: 5 spades and less then 8pts) he will have to cancel the board. In the latter case you will have no additional information from the first bidding. 3.) I don't think that we should apply L 15 A instead of L 15 C. You will always have 3 AVG+ results if you do that. Perhaps L 15 C allows a ruling of the situation without any artificial score. My suggestion: New 16 B 3. Award an Adjusted Score award an artifical adjusted score if there is any damage caused by the information. New 15 C. ...The calls of the first bidding are UI according to L 16 B. Then we would have a clear situation: If they bid 7NT, let them play. Greetings, Volker -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 00:50:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IEnds18882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:49:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IEnUt18868 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:49:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id AB0CF8E86; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:44:51 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010718112354.0083e350@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010718112354.0083e350@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:44:40 -0400 To: alain gottcheiner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Cc: Stephen Tu , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:23 AM +0200 7/18/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 12:36 16/07/01 -0700, Stephen Tu wrote: >>On the Kaplan-Sheinwold mailing list, we are having a debate >>on whether a particular sequence should be alerted. I was hoping >>some of you directors could settle this, for cases ACBL/WBF/EBU, >>and give me permission to forward the responses to the KS list. Sorry, Stephen, but things are seldom settled on the BLML! Even those who could settle something officially will usually not do so here, and with good reason. > >KS is nominally a 5 cd major, 12-14 nt system. > >The auction: 1h-p-1nt(1)-p-p(2) >>(1) alerted/announced "semi-forcing" as required >>(2) Agreement is that this is either 5332, bad hearts, min, or >>4 cd hearts, min, 1444, 24(52) with good hearts and weak minor, >>or 3433 with concentrated honors in hearts. Or 4432 concentrated! Say Axxx AKQx xxx xx. Also if 1444 the hearts must be "decent". A typical hand is x KQTx Axxx Axxx. 1H is systemic because we can't open 1D and rebid 2C over 1S -- that would show extras, as would 1NT. You can ask what we'd do with weaker hearts, but the KS Mailing list is probably the spot for that! http://www.topica.com/lists/KS > >Is the inclusion of the 4 cd major hands in (2) unusual enough > >to warrant an alert of the pass? > >AG : your agreements are contradictory. Either you play a 5-card >majors-based system, and agreement (2) can't hold (you allow yourself the >very uncommon 4-card suit, but partner doesn't know it), or you don't, and >your card should read 'K-S with occasional 4-card major' or the like. That would be redundant. KS is a five card major system which allows an occasional opening on a good four card suit. On the ACBL convention card under "4 card major openings" we check the boxes marked "Seldom." This is why Stephen used the term "nominally." As Edgar Kaplan put it, 1M promises a fifth trump, but it doesn't always deliver." I asked him what to fill in on the WBF convention card, where there is a box for "Minimum expected length." He said I should write "5". This seems right - responder expects five, and usually gets them! I note the possibility of four in the description. >Playing a 5-card majors system, and alerting at some point of the sequence >to say your partner may have a 4-card suit, will be considered by most >directors as a hidden agreement - thus subject to penalty. Nothing is hidden, so there can be no penalty. AW -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 01:28:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IFRrB26919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:27:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6IFRft26901 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:27:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6IFP9q07590 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:25:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107181525.f6IFP9q07590@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 11:25:09 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 17, 2001 09:52:34 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 Ed Reppert writes: > > Let me quote the whole sentence, and put the emphasis on a different word: > > "If any *call* differs in any way from the corresponding call in the > first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." > > Do you see now why I had a problem? If the call in question is 1C by > the first player, and 1H by the second, then they differ, obviously. > It's not so obvious to me that 1C (Acol) and 1C (Precision) are > different calls, but I've come 'round, as I said, to accept that they > are. In fact, what I've read here leads me to conclude that if I were > directing (unlikely :) I would be tempted to rule the board > unplayable *whatever* calls were made. Unless I'm convinced that both > players are playing exactly the same system, or nearly so. And even > then, differences in style would make the calls "differ in any way". > So I'm wondering if there's *any* situation in which it is right to > allow the board to be played. THat's easy. There's a huge overlap of hands that will pass in first seat. If you're playing the same type of natural limited NT, there will be at least a 95% chance that the call will be the same. If both pairs play weak 2s (and the same general style) ... In the clubs I'm familiar with in New York city I'd estimate at least an 80% chance that a board will be playable. A lot lower around here -- where there isn't nearly as much of a consensus on system. At a WBF event the chance of a playable board is much lower, but still if a balanced 7 count happens to be dealt ... -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 02:18:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IGI4s09791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 02:18:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IGHtt09740 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 02:17:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA27039 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA19801 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:15:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:15:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question > your card should read 'K-S with occasional 4-card major' or the like. As Adam W. explained in more detail, K-S systemically includes certain 4cM openings. These are fairly unusual, but if dealt the appropriate hand, all K-S players will open the 4cM. It is in no way a system deviation. Without a simulation, I'd guess that something more than than 99% of 1M openings deliver >=five card length, but the other <1% are still part of the system. The problem is that the new ACBL convention cards contain check boxes labeled "Expected Min. Length," with choices of 4 and 5. (Apparently the WBF cards are much the same.) There is very little space to write anything on this part of the ACBL card. How is one supposed to mark the card? And what does that imply for alerting? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 02:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IGKYA10763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 02:20:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IGKRt10722 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 02:20:28 +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 MAA27187 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA19810 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:17:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:17:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > Let me quote the whole sentence, and put the emphasis on a different word: > > "If any *call* differs in any way from the corresponding call in the > first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." > > Do you see now why I had a problem? Ton, Grattan: perhaps the footnote in L26 needs to be added to L15C (if you keep 15C in anything like its present form). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 03:38:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IHbj519247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6IHbHt19233 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:37:18 +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 NAA27179 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107181743.NAA27179@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:43:04 -0400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 18 July 2001 at 12:15, Steve Willner wrote: [K-S includes several systemic 4-card major openings] >The problem is that the new ACBL convention cards contain check boxes >labeled "Expected Min. Length," with choices of 4 and 5. (Apparently >the WBF cards are much the same.) There is very little space to write >anything on this part of the ACBL card. > The WBF cards simply have a slot called "expected minimum length", and you write in the number. >How is one supposed to mark the card? And what does that imply for >alerting? What I do in similar circumstances (I will open a weak hand with a decent 4-card major in third seat) is mark the "5" box, and put an arrow back to the 4. I hope that gives the impression I want: "We expect 5 for a 1M bid, but partner could have 4 in specific circumstances". 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 Jul 19 03:46:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IHjsl19406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:45:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IHjlt19401 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:45:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id 5.fc.9335856 (18709); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:41:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:41:49 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fc.9335856.2887245d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_fc.9335856.2887245d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/18/01 8:21:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes: > Two pairs are seated and north opens on his turn with pass. Now east > discovers he is seated at the wrong table. Right pair takes its seats and > after TD interruption (well seen editor of the Bridge World: the TD should > instruct the pairs to continue normally) the auction goes pass by North and > 7NT by east doubled by south. In my opinion the TD at that table should > interrupt the play, take east from the table, ask him for his reasons to bid > 7NT and with the expected answer given should cancel the board and give 0% - > 60% in a pairs event and I don't know what in a teams event. > Once more the floor to the hawks who give NS 100% on this board. > Hey man, why would you cancel the result? The first West took no action according to your example, so how did the auction differ? I guess you need to proofread your answers a bit, and I'll spell "litigious" better. > Kojak used the word 'litiginous' and then complains about those not speaking > English fluently. > I am not talking about the possibility that it should be 'litigious' > is were I found a meaning for after having forced my whole office to > support should "were" be "where" above? What is "for" modifying? > e in solving my ignorance) but about his misplaced trust in people to > understand what he wants to say. Try 'apple' and 'nose'. > This example has not a litigi(n)ous source, it is to show you that the TD > has a responsibility to let our sport be played in accordance with the laws, > but not in the narrow minded 'this is what it means and I don't have a > choice' way. When a good TD has the feeling that something goes wrong he > better thinks twice. Educating TD's one of my statements is that when after > a ruling the players start looking amazed the TD better checks his ruling > once more. > > If a TD can explain me, as member of the AC, why he took such a decision, I > would feel very happy and even if I have to change that decision, I like > such people on the playing floor. > It probably leads to a note in my lawbook. > > Shouldn't there be a "to" between "explain me" in the above sentence? > Also, sorry that I mislead you with my egregious spelling of litigious -- > it's so far from the correct spelling that I can see your trouble with it. > But then English wasn't my first language so I guess I can be forgiven. > --part1_fc.9335856.2887245d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/18/01 8:21:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL writes:


Two pairs are seated and north opens on his turn with pass. Now east
discovers he is seated at the wrong table. Right pair takes its seats and
after TD interruption (well seen editor of the Bridge World: the TD should
instruct the pairs to continue normally) the auction goes pass by North and
7NT by east doubled by south. In my opinion the TD at that table should
interrupt the play, take east from the table, ask him for his reasons to bid
7NT and with the expected answer given should cancel the board and give 0% -
60% in a pairs event and I don't know what in a teams event.
Once more the floor to the hawks who give NS 100% on this board.




Hey man, why would you cancel the result?  The first West took no action
according to your example, so how did the auction differ?  I guess you need
to proofread your answers a bit, and I'll spell "litigious" better.


Kojak used the word 'litiginous' and then complains about those not speaking
English fluently.
I am not talking about the possibility that it should be 'litigious'


(that
is were I found a meaning for after having forced my whole office to
support


should "were" be "where" above?  What is "for" modifying?

m
e in solving my ignorance) but about his misplaced trust in people to
understand what he wants to say. Try 'apple' and 'nose'.
This example has not a litigi(n)ous source, it is to show you that the TD
has a responsibility to let our sport be played in accordance with the laws,
but not in the narrow minded 'this is what it means and I don't have a
choice' way. When a good TD has the feeling that something goes wrong he
better thinks twice. Educating TD's one of my statements is that when after
a ruling the players start looking amazed the TD better checks his ruling
once more.

If a TD can explain me, as member of the AC, why he took such a decision, I
would feel very happy and even if I have to change that decision, I like
such people on the playing floor.
It probably leads to a note in my lawbook.

Shouldn't there be a "to" between "explain me" in the above sentence?  
Also, sorry that I mislead you with my egregious spelling of litigious --
it's so far from the correct spelling that I can see your trouble with it.
But then English wasn't my first language so I guess I can be forgiven.





--part1_fc.9335856.2887245d_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 04:54:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IIsK424893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:54:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IIsEt24889 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:54:14 +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 KAA06273 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:52:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:51:01 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: <001a01c10f7c$9c710b20$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 Here is something slightly different from the discussion up to now that I'd like to run past all of you. L15C says: "... If any call differs ... the Director *shall cancel the board*." Compare this to the wording in other places. For example 15B "...his second score is cancelled ... and the director *shall award an ArtAS*." There aren't many times we cancel boards. About the only one that comes up commonly involves slow play in team matches. But, as I understand it -- to "cancel a board" for someone means that boards ceases to exist entirely as far as that person's score is concerned. That is, it looks to me like 15C, on a close reading, does not send us to L12 at all, but says that the pairs involved simply play one less board and get their session score factored by 26/25 (or whatever) at the end. Does anyone believe the explicit use of the term "cancel the board" in 15C has this impact on the handling of this situation? The few times it has come up in the past for me I have awarded ArtAS to the pairs involved, but now I have doubts as to whether this is correct procedure. (I still don't have any doubts that it is legal for the NOS to deliberately make an unusual call to force it to happen. But this reading somewhat diminishes the incentive to do so.) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 04:56:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IIujs24948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:56:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6IIudt24942 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:56:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6IIs9p28507 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:54:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:54 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? 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: <001a01c10f7c$9c710b20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Rik Terveen wrote: > '12C. Awarding an Adjusted Score > 1. Artificial Score > When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director > awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the > irregularity: average minus (at most 40% of the available matchpoints > in pairs) to a contestant directly at fault; average (50% in pairs) to > a contestant only partially at fault; average plus (at least 60% in > pairs) to a contestant in no way at fault (see Law 86 for team play or > Law 88 for pairs play). The scores awarded to the two sides need not > balance.' > > If a player makes a deliberate attempt to prevent a normal result on > the board, and it turns out that indeed no normal result can be > obtained, it makes the player partially at fault for not obtaining a > normal result. 'Partially at fault' translates in a 50% score. It may make the player 'partially at fault for not obtaining a normal result'. But it can't possibly make him *in any way* responsible for the irregularity. The irregularity was a pair starting to play the wrong board when that player wasn't even at the table! Had the TD started his spiel "Because you were late arriving I'm holding you partially responsible...." then 50% would be OK. 7NT was a legal call in rotation, probably a gross violation of partnership agreements (although how many of us have even considered opening 7NT let alone discussed what it shows). So I have no problem accepting that 7NT was a low-risk psyche. As DWS pointed out we can adjust in cases of frivolous psyching (though I would seldom rule this one frivolous). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 05:15:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IJF2B25281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:15:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IJEtt25275 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-112.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.112]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D8E9B36C78; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:12:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004001c10fbc$c62eaae0$70b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , , Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 20:30:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C10FC8.76AB53E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C10FC8.76AB53E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 =20 Two pairs are seated and north opens on his turn with pass. Now = east=20 discovers he is seated at the wrong table. Right pair takes its = seats and=20 after TD interruption (well seen editor of the Bridge World: the = TD should=20 instruct the pairs to continue normally) the auction goes pass = by North and=20 7NT by east doubled by south. In my opinion the TD at that table = should=20 interrupt the play, take east from the table, ask him for his = reasons to bid=20 7NT and with the expected answer given should cancel the board = and give 0% -=20 60% in a pairs event and I don't know what in a teams event.=20 Once more the floor to the hawks who give NS 100% on this board. = =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Hey man, why would you cancel the result? The first West took no = action=20 according to your example, so how did the auction differ? I guess = you need=20 to proofread your answers a bit, and I'll spell "litigious" better.=20 =20 =20 =20 Kojak used the word 'litiginous' and then complains about those = not speaking=20 English fluently.=20 I am not talking about the possibility that it should be = 'litigious'=20 =20 =20 (that=20 is were I found a meaning for after having forced my whole = office to=20 support =20 =20 should "were" be "where" above? What is "for" modifying?=20 =20 m e in solving my ignorance) but about his misplaced trust in = people to=20 understand what he wants to say. Try 'apple' and 'nose'.=20 This example has not a litigi(n)ous source, it is to show you = that the TD=20 has a responsibility to let our sport be played in accordance = with the laws,=20 but not in the narrow minded 'this is what it means and I don't = have a=20 choice' way. When a good TD has the feeling that something goes = wrong he=20 better thinks twice. Educating TD's one of my statements is that = when after=20 a ruling the players start looking amazed the TD better checks = his ruling=20 once more.=20 =20 If a TD can explain me, as member of the AC, why he took such a = decision, I=20 would feel very happy and even if I have to change that = decision, I like=20 such people on the playing floor.=20 It probably leads to a note in my lawbook.=20 =20 Shouldn't there be a "to" between "explain me" in the above = sentence? =20 Also, sorry that I mislead you with my egregious spelling of = litigious --=20 it's so far from the correct spelling that I can see your = trouble with it.=20 But then English wasn't my first language so I guess I can be = forgiven.=20 =20 =20 You don't need to convince me that my English is terrible, I know it = is. And yes I forgive you when yours is.=20 Proofreading when I should write 'where' in stead of 'were' is very = useful, but the example I gave was so by purpose. East expecting to = (not) repeat what happened before and in fact only north having made a = call. But I understand that I am not with you in my approach. What about = activily applying 25B here. The TD forcing east to change his call in a = normal one, but since the 7NT certainly was not inadvertent promisisng = EW at most 40%? Inventive don't you think?=20 ton =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C10FC8.76AB53E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 


Two pairs are seated and north opens on his turn with = pass.=20 Now east
discovers he is seated at the wrong table. Right = pair takes=20 its seats and
after TD interruption (well seen editor of the = Bridge=20 World: the TD should
instruct the pairs to continue = normally) the=20 auction goes pass by North and
7NT by east doubled by south. = In my=20 opinion the TD at that table should
interrupt the play, take = east=20 from the table, ask him for his reasons to bid
7NT and with = the=20 expected answer given should cancel the board and give 0% - =
60% in a=20 pairs event and I don't know what in a teams event.
Once = more the=20 floor to the hawks who give NS 100% on this board.=20




Hey man, why would you cancel = the=20 result?  The first West took no action
according to your = example,=20 so how did the auction differ?  I guess you need
to = proofread your=20 answers a bit, and I'll spell "litigious" better. =


Kojak used the word 'litiginous' and then complains = about=20 those not speaking
English fluently.
I am not talking = about the=20 possibility that it should be 'litigious'

(that=20 is were I found a meaning for after having forced my = whole=20 office to
support

should = "were" be=20 "where" above?  What is "for" modifying?=20

m e in solving my ignorance) but about his misplaced = trust in=20 people to
understand what he wants to say. Try 'apple' and = 'nose'.=20
This example has not a litigi(n)ous source, it is to show = you that=20 the TD
has a responsibility to let our sport be played in = accordance=20 with the laws,
but not in the narrow minded 'this is what it = means=20 and I don't have a
choice' way. When a good TD has the = feeling that=20 something goes wrong he
better thinks twice. Educating TD's = one of=20 my statements is that when after
a ruling the players start = looking=20 amazed the TD better checks his ruling
once more.

If = a TD=20 can explain me, as member of the AC, why he took such a = decision, I=20
would feel very happy and even if I have to change that = decision, I=20 like
such people on the playing floor.
It probably leads = to a=20 note in my lawbook.

Shouldn't there be a "to" = between=20 "explain me" in the above sentence?  
Also, = sorry=20 that I mislead you with my egregious spelling of litigious -- =
it's=20 so far from the correct spelling that I can see your trouble = with it.=20
But then English wasn't my first language so I guess I can = be=20 forgiven.

You don't need to convince me = that my English=20 is terrible, I know it is. And yes I forgive you when yours is.=20 Proofreading = when I=20 should write 'where' in stead of 'were' is very useful, but the = example I=20 gave was so by purpose. East expecting to (not) repeat what happened = before=20 and in fact only north having made a call. But I understand that I = am not=20 with you in my approach. What about activily applying 25B here. The = TD=20 forcing east to change his call in a normal one, but since the 7NT = certainly=20 was not inadvertent promisisng EW at most 40%? Inventive don't you = think?=20 ton



 ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C10FC8.76AB53E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 05:44:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IJheA25729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:43:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IJhTt25720 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:43:30 +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 15MxBo-0007ee-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:40:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:33:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> <8Y3xGDD0mDV7EwLs@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 Ed Reppert writes >At 2:12 PM +0100 7/17/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> >If the intent of "differs" in this law is to apply to the *meaning* >> >of the call, rather than the call itself, then why does the law not >> >say so? >> >> ???? >> >> It does: it says differs in *any* way. > >Let me quote the whole sentence, and put the emphasis on a different word: > >"If any *call* differs in any way from the corresponding call in the >first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." > >Do you see now why I had a problem? If the call in question is 1C by >the first player, and 1H by the second, then they differ, obviously. >It's not so obvious to me that 1C (Acol) and 1C (Precision) are >different calls, but I've come 'round, as I said, to accept that they >are. In fact, what I've read here leads me to conclude that if I were >directing (unlikely :) I would be tempted to rule the board >unplayable *whatever* calls were made. Unless I'm convinced that both >players are playing exactly the same system, or nearly so. And even >then, differences in style would make the calls "differ in any way". >So I'm wondering if there's *any* situation in which it is right to >allow the board to be played. Have you considered a pair who pass throughout? These auctions rarely go on very long. What usually happens is that you get a sequence such as: W N E S 1H No and then realisation sets in. A new E/W pair is sat down, everyone's rights are explained, and the TD checks the auction. North is required to open 1H. If East passes the auction is allowed to continue. -- 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 Jul 19 05:44:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IJhlV25736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:43:47 +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-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 f6IJhZt25724 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 05:43:35 +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 15MxBo-0007ef-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 19:41:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 13:37:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004101c10f60$38dd7880$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <004101c10f60$38dd7880$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >I see 80 E as a way to give an SO the possibility to extend the Laws to >circumstances that the Laws themselves do not deal with while keeping the spirit >of the Laws intact. >I don't think it is a good idea for the WBF to specify regulations for how to >play bridge when all players (or only one) are blind. I do think that it is a >good idea for an SO to come up with special regulations when they organize a >tournament for vision impaired. 80 E gives them the possibility to write >regulations for these special conditions. (In a similar way, the use of bidding >boxes creates a special condition, but that case is less clear as an example.) > >Law 80F could be used if an SO wants all players to dress funny during the >Carnaval in The Netherlands. But 80F prevents them from giving extra tricks to >the pair that consumed more beer. ;o) What you write here is obviously sensible. However, I think we have had examples that show that the authorities do not follow what you say. -- 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 Jul 19 06:27:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6IKQRW29357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:26:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6IKQKt29319 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 06:26:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.7.) id c.6b.174d0fe5 (6397); Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:22:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <6b.174d0fe5.288749f3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:22:11 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6b.174d0fe5.288749f3_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_6b.174d0fe5.288749f3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/18/01 3:12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes: > > >> East expecting to (not) repeat what happened before and in fact only >> north having made a call. But I understand that I am not with you in my >> approach. What about activily applying 25B here. The TD forcing east to >> change his call in a normal one, but since the 7NT certainly was not >> inadvertent promisisng EW at most 40%? Inventive don't you think? > > > >> ton >> Which makes me happier with my approach when this happens. I seat the proper opponents, instruct N/S that they must repeat their previous calls, and tell the whole table that if any call etc............I will cancel the board and award an adjusted score.That leaves E/W completely in the dark as to the extent of the previous bidding. Since E/W does not know if their side had made ANY calls, if they want to take a flyer and guess that there was a call that they can differ from, they are fully entitled to take that chance. However since no call differs from the previous ones, there is no reason to make any adjustment to the result. Keeps "em honest, guessing, and playing bridge. To return to the original scenario (i.e. West has passed in the previous auction attempt), I like the idea that Law 88 covers this with the words "choice of his own" which I'm sure was not the intention of that wording. I think it was intended to cover the cases where a player has a stated choice to make, i.e. Law 16B and Law 13 B) but I'm mulling this over as a place to hang the hat when tasked to cite a Law for the action that I would take against 7 NT. The artificial score is clearly through choice of his own, and therefore he is not entitled to the protection this Law provides. IN facf the more I think about it the better I like it. Maybe Grattan can enlighten us on the intent. Kojak Kojak > >> >> >> > --part1_6b.174d0fe5.288749f3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/18/01 3:12:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
t.kooyman@worldonline.nl writes:



East expecting to (not) repeat what happened before and in fact only
north having made a call. But I understand that I am not with you in my
approach. What about activily applying 25B here. The TD forcing east to
change his call in a normal one, but since the 7NT certainly was not
inadvertent promisisng EW at most 40%? Inventive don't you think?



ton

Which makes me happier with my approach when this happens.  I seat the proper
opponents, instruct N/S that they must repeat their previous calls, and tell
the whole table that if any call etc............I will cancel the board and
award an adjusted score.That leaves E/W completely in the dark as to the
extent of the previous bidding. Since E/W does not know if their side had
made ANY calls, if they want to take a flyer and guess that there was a call
that they can differ from, they are fully entitled to take that chance.  
However since no call differs from the previous ones, there is no reason to
make any adjustment to the result.  Keeps "em honest, guessing, and playing
bridge.

To return to the original scenario (i.e. West has passed in the previous
auction attempt), I like the idea that Law 88 covers this with the words
"choice of his own" which I'm sure was not the intention of that wording.  I
think it was intended to cover the cases where a player has a stated choice
to make, i.e. Law 16B and Law 13 B) but I'm mulling this over as a place to
hang the hat when tasked to cite a Law for the action that I would take
against 7 NT.  The artificial score is clearly through choice of his own, and
therefore he is not entitled to the protection this Law provides. IN facf the
more I think about it the better I like it. Maybe Grattan can enlighten us on
the intent.


Kojak
Kojak








--part1_6b.174d0fe5.288749f3_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 07:16:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ILGfB10948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 07:16:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailman2.cais.net (mailman2.cais.net [205.252.14.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ILGYt10914 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 07:16:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by mailman2.cais.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f6ILAbM61603 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:10:37 -0400 (EDT) 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 f6IL4R289901 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:04:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010718165819.00ab3370@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, 18 Jul 2001 17:06:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: References: <00a301c10c7f$43de3320$b3b6f1c3@kooijman> <3B51729E.2CF60368@village.uunet.be> <8Y3xGDD0mDV7EwLs@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 08:33 AM 7/18/01, David wrote: > Have you considered a pair who pass throughout? > > These auctions rarely go on very long. What usually happens is that >you get a sequence such as: > > W N E S > 1H No > >and then realisation sets in. A new E/W pair is sat down, everyone's >rights are explained, and the TD checks the auction. North is required >to open 1H. If East passes the auction is allowed to continue. Even this sequence is fraught with danger. One can readily imagine N and/or S knowing, for example, that the first E overcalls on trash, while the second E is a sound overcaller. That could very easily provide N-S with an inference later in the deal that would place the proper, innocent E-W pair at a serious disadvantage. 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 Jul 19 07:22:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ILLpF12807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 07:21:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6ILLit12774 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 07:21:44 +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 f6ILJDA31631 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:19:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010718171503.00af12a0@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, 18 Jul 2001 17:20:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-Reply-To: References: <001a01c10f7c$9c710b20$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 02:51 PM 7/18/01, Gordon wrote: >Here is something slightly different from the discussion up to now that >I'd like to run past all of you. > >L15C says: "... If any call differs ... the Director *shall cancel the >board*." > >Compare this to the wording in other places. For example 15B "...his >second score is cancelled ... and the director *shall award an ArtAS*." > >There aren't many times we cancel boards. About the only one that comes up >commonly involves slow play in team matches. But, as I understand it -- to >"cancel a board" for someone means that boards ceases to exist entirely as >far as that person's score is concerned. That is, it looks to me like 15C, >on a close reading, does not send us to L12 at all, but says that the >pairs involved simply play one less board and get their session score >factored by 26/25 (or whatever) at the end. > >Does anyone believe the explicit use of the term "cancel the board" in 15C >has this impact on the handling of this situation? > >The few times it has come up in the past for me I have awarded ArtAS to >the pairs involved, but now I have doubts as to whether this is correct >procedure. Ingenious piece of interpretation, but it won't wash. L15B: "...the board is cancelled... and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score..." I think we must assume that the term "cancel the board" in L15C means the same thing it means in L15B. 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 Jul 19 10:53:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J0qc323642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f6J0qRt23634 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15N20o-000AcC-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:49:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:48:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717083432.00a92450@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010718115623.008318c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010718081931.00ab42d0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010718081931.00ab42d0@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 >> >> N E S W >> >> 1H 1S 4H P (after a very long hesitation) >> >> P 4S All P >In the original problem, I not only adjust back to 4H, but give serious >consideration to penalizing E for a flagrant violation of L73C. I do >not expect players to understand and conform to the strictures of L16A, >but I do expect them, at minimum, to take the same action they would >have taken without the UI, and I don't think E has done so here, based >on the above analysis. Had he planned in advance to bid 4S on the >actual auction, he would surely have bid 2D the first time. Without commenting on the *decision* perhaps I might comment on the bridge logic. There are a number of good players who have a view that sequences of this sort show two-suiters. If you had a one-suiter that might bid 4S on the second round then you would jump in spades on the first round. But not necessarily with a two-suiter. So if a good player bid 1H 1S 4H P P 4S I would not be surprised if he was two-suited, and I would not be surprised if the spades were shorter. Of course, whether this pair plays a two-suiter convention, and how, would affect this. -- 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 Jul 19 10:53:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J0qas23640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6J0qMt23622 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15N20f-000AcF-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:49:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:43:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question References: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200107181743.NAA27179@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200107181743.NAA27179@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes >What I do in similar circumstances (I will open a weak hand with a >decent 4-card major in third seat) is mark the "5" box, and put an arrow >back to the 4. I hope that gives the impression I want: "We expect 5 >for a 1M bid, but partner could have 4 in specific circumstances". Aha! Like an Acol 1S opening? -- 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 Jul 19 10:53:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J0qZA23639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f6J0qKt23618 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15N20e-000AcD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:49:50 +0100 Message-ID: <+7aBeoCA+gV7Ew4S@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:36:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010716154642.00ab7d00@127.0.0.1> <3B5422F5.BFB23794@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717150352.00abf840@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010718074731.00aeec10@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010718074731.00aeec10@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 09:51 PM 7/17/01, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> >> >L15A: "If players play a board..." The consensus interpretation seems >> >to be that "play a board" means begin the "play period". >> >> Playing a board does not mean start the play period. >> >> Playing a board means putting the board on the table, taking out the >>hands, bidding, playing, putting the hands back, scoring and telling >>partner what he did wrong. That is playing a board. >> >> Well, it has been for the last thirty years! > >I'd have thought so too, but, as Herman pointed out, that doesn't work >very well in the context of L15. >L15A: "If players play a board..." L15B: "If any player plays a >board..." L15C: "If, during the auction period..." Thus if we >interpret "play a board" in the normal way, L15 offers no guidance as >to what happens when a mis-move is discovered in mid-play. A number of >posts in this thread seem to have taken for granted that when that >happens, L15A-B applies. I'm not sure whether they're reading the >words in the law that way or taking an inference about the presumed >intent of the lawmakers, but, in either case, unless you assume that >the writers of the law deliberately decided not to write any law to >cover this case, it would seem to be the only reasonable way to >interpret what they did write. > >Moreover, as Steve pointed out, the Definitions section in TFLB gives >four different definitions of "play". The "normal" meaning of "play a >board", as set forth by David, uses definition #4. The interpretation >that allows L15 to work in all mis-move situations uses definition >#3. Without context, that makes both interpretations appear to be >valid, allowing us to choose the one that makes sense in the context of >this particular law. Perhaps my comments could have been more helpful, since I was answering the question rather than the reasoning behind. The way I have always interpreted L15 is that if the problem is discovered during the auction period, L15C applies. If the play has been reached, and L15B does not apply then the board is completed and L15A applied. If someone has played the board before and the play period is reached then L15B applies. I believe this to be consistent with what I understand by play a board. Sure, the TD may stop it part way through because of L15B or L15C but otherwise it is going to be played through. -- 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 Jul 19 10:53:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J0qga23644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6J0qLt23619 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:52:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15N20e-000AcE-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 01:49:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:40:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <001a01c10f7c$9c710b20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> 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 is something slightly different from the discussion up to now that >I'd like to run past all of you. > >L15C says: "... If any call differs ... the Director *shall cancel the >board*." > >Compare this to the wording in other places. For example 15B "...his >second score is cancelled ... and the director *shall award an ArtAS*." > >There aren't many times we cancel boards. About the only one that comes up >commonly involves slow play in team matches. But, as I understand it -- to >"cancel a board" for someone means that boards ceases to exist entirely as >far as that person's score is concerned. That is, it looks to me like 15C, >on a close reading, does not send us to L12 at all, but says that the >pairs involved simply play one less board and get their session score >factored by 26/25 (or whatever) at the end. > >Does anyone believe the explicit use of the term "cancel the board" in 15C >has this impact on the handling of this situation? No. When you cancel a board then the language of L12C1 applies so an ArtAS is normally suitable. Why normally? Because in certain circumstances it is possible for a substitute board to be played. Then "no result can be obtained" does not apply and L12C1 is irrelevant. -- 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 Jul 19 11:26:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J1QGq24303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:26:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6J1Q9t24297 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:26:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA24045; Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:23:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jul 2001 23:48:43 BST." Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:23:38 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Without commenting on the *decision* perhaps I might comment on the > bridge logic. > > There are a number of good players who have a view that sequences of > this sort show two-suiters. If you had a one-suiter that might bid 4S > on the second round then you would jump in spades on the first round. > But not necessarily with a two-suiter. > > So if a good player bid > > 1H 1S 4H P > P 4S > > I would not be surprised if he was two-suited, and I would not be > surprised if the spades were shorter. > > Of course, whether this pair plays a two-suiter convention, and how, > would affect this. Good point. In fact, now that you mention it, it reminds of a somewhat similar situation in the Master Solvers' Club two or three years ago. I think the auction was something like 1something (dbl) 2S ... where 2S was weak; and the 2S bidder later bid 4S uninvited. The panel was supposed to figure out that this showed something other just a whole lot of spades. This may or may not apply in the case of a 1S overcall, however. Depending on how one plays, there are hands with lots of spades that are too strong to bid 4S right away (but not strong enough to start with a double in one's system); if you bid that way both with strong hands and with weaker preempts, you'll never be able to find a slam when you hold the strong hand. Of course, someone could decide it's worthwhile to sacrifice that ability in order to gain on the 2-suiters. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 19 13:15:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J3Cgk13796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:12:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6J3CWt13753 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id DAA30900 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 03:10:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 04:05:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) References: <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Without commenting on the *decision* perhaps I might comment on the >> bridge logic. >> >> There are a number of good players who have a view that sequences of >> this sort show two-suiters. If you had a one-suiter that might bid 4S >> on the second round then you would jump in spades on the first round. >> But not necessarily with a two-suiter. >> >> So if a good player bid >> >> 1H 1S 4H P >> P 4S >> >> I would not be surprised if he was two-suited, and I would not be >> surprised if the spades were shorter. >> >> Of course, whether this pair plays a two-suiter convention, and how, >> would affect this. > >Good point. In fact, now that you mention it, it reminds of a >somewhat similar situation in the Master Solvers' Club two or three >years ago. I think the auction was something like 1something (dbl) 2S >... where 2S was weak; and the 2S bidder later bid 4S uninvited. The >panel was supposed to figure out that this showed something other just >a whole lot of spades. > >This may or may not apply in the case of a 1S overcall, however. >Depending on how one plays, there are hands with lots of spades that >are too strong to bid 4S right away (but not strong enough to start >with a double in one's system); if you bid that way both with strong >hands and with weaker preempts, you'll never be able to find a slam >when you hold the strong hand. Of course, someone could decide it's >worthwhile to sacrifice that ability in order to gain on the >2-suiters. > I was aware that the 4S bid probably showed a 2-suiter, but I still think pass is a LA, so I still adjust. -- 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 Jul 19 18:15:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J8EvO18087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:14:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6J8Emt18040 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:14:49 +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; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:13:42 +0200 Message-ID: <006401c1102a$c001d160$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu><200107181743.NAA27179@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:13:53 +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 f6J8Ept18061 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 12:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question > Michael Farebrother writes > > >What I do in similar circumstances (I will open a weak hand with a > >decent 4-card major in third seat) is mark the "5" box, and put an arrow > >back to the 4. I hope that gives the impression I want: "We expect 5 > >for a 1M bid, but partner could have 4 in specific circumstances". > > Aha! Like an Acol 1S opening? Looks even more like a Dutch Acol 1S opening where four card suits are bid 'up the line'. ;o) 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 Jul 19 19:16:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J9G0E06960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:16:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6J9Fqt06915 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:15:53 +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 LAA25404; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:09:53 +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 LAA13321; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:13:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010719111818.008335a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:18:18 +0200 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:23 18/07/01 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Good point. In fact, now that you mention it, it reminds of a >somewhat similar situation in the Master Solvers' Club two or three >years ago. I think the auction was something like 1something (dbl) 2S >... where 2S was weak; and the 2S bidder later bid 4S uninvited. The >panel was supposed to figure out that this showed something other just >a whole lot of spades. >This may or may not apply in the case of a 1S overcall, however. >Depending on how one plays, there are hands with lots of spades that >are too strong to bid 4S right away (but not strong enough to start >with a double in one's system) AG : I wouldn't have such a problem, since I use both (1H) 4H and (2H) 4H to show a very sound 4S overcall. But say I (or you) hold something like : KQJ109x void Axx KQ109 RHO opens 1H. Yuo can hardly double with a heart void and limited defensive assets. Since many would consider this hand too strong for a 2S overcall, there remains nothing but 1S, knowing that this won't often be the end of the bidding. Now leftie bids 4H. Is there anybody who wouldn't bid 4S now ? I would even allow it after a long tempo. A double game swing is quite possible. And I would be very surprised if partner explained I must have 5S and 6 in a minor ... 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 Jul 19 19:26:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J9Q1D09884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6J9Ptt09878 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA26991; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:19:56 +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 LAA19139; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:23:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010719112821.0082fb80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:28:21 +0200 To: Adam Wildavsky From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Cc: Stephen Tu , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010718112354.0083e350@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010718112354.0083e350@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 10:44 18/07/01 -0400, Adam Wildavsky wrote: KS is a five card major system which allows >an occasional opening on a good four card suit. On the ACBL >convention card under "4 card major openings" we check the boxes >marked "Seldom." > >This is why Stephen used the term "nominally." As Edgar Kaplan put >it, 1M promises a fifth trump, but it doesn't always deliver." I >asked him what to fill in on the WBF convention card, where there is >a box for "Minimum expected length." He said I should write "5". This >seems right - responder expects five, and usually gets them! I note >the possibility of four in the description. > >>Playing a 5-card majors system, and alerting at some point of the sequence >>to say your partner may have a 4-card suit, will be considered by most >>directors as a hidden agreement - thus subject to penalty. AG : OK, partner will raise you freely with 3 trumps, so he's expecting 5. But imagine you end defending. Surely, at some time, partner will make provisions for you to hold a 4-card suit, because 'you've done it before'. This meets my criterion for applying the second line of L75B. One strong argument is that the 1NT response is standard on, say, a 2344 6-count, thus providing a safeguard against partner having opened 1H on 44 majors. In some aspects, the systems takes into account the fact that a 4-card major might occasionally have been bid. I would thus not check the '5' box. At least not in Belgium, where playing 5-card majors means playing 5-card majors. BTW, I browsed through Sheinwold's original work, and didn't see any mention about opening a 4-card major in 1st/2nd seat. 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 Jul 19 19:28:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6J9SgE09939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:28:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6J9SZt09932 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 19:28:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA17135; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:25:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA20732; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:25:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010719113048.0082b180@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:30:48 +0200 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question In-Reply-To: <200107181743.NAA27179@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200107181615.MAA19801@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 13:43 18/07/01 -0400, Michael Farebrother wrote: >On 18 July 2001 at 12:15, Steve Willner wrote: >[K-S includes several systemic 4-card major openings] > >>The problem is that the new ACBL convention cards contain check boxes >>labeled "Expected Min. Length," with choices of 4 and 5. (Apparently >>the WBF cards are much the same.) There is very little space to write >>anything on this part of the ACBL card. >> >The WBF cards simply have a slot called "expected minimum length", and >you write in the number. > >>How is one supposed to mark the card? And what does that imply for >>alerting? > >What I do in similar circumstances (I will open a weak hand with a >decent 4-card major in third seat) is mark the "5" box, and put an arrow >back to the 4. I hope that gives the impression I want: "We expect 5 >for a 1M bid, but partner could have 4 in specific circumstances". AG : the WBF card instructions say you should write 5 (4) . The brackets mean 'seldom used'. Perhaps this is difficult on the ACBL CC, BTA I've always felt it option-restrictive. 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 Jul 20 04:40:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JId1b14770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 04:39:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6JIcot14726 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 04:38:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 13E66D7CAD for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:36:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:36:14 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6JIcrt14743 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:05:44 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I think it is time I commented. I was asked this problem originally, >and like Kojak I immediately wanted to know what law had been violated. > So what about this case? If the player merely wants to get to the >bar, has no real interest in the game, and just opens 7NT so he can get >it over with, then he has breached L74A2: he has acted frivolously, and >now we can deal with him. > > Now consider a different scenario: suppose his current oppos are the >best players present, and he is doing quite well. To get A+ against >them is likely to enhance his chances of winning the event. Thus his >aim in opening 7NT is to increase his chances of winning the event: the >fact that his current opponents are not happy is irrelevant. I agree completely with David on this one. If the player has selected 7 NT as the call that is most likely to give him a good score, then I can see nothing illegal (or otherwise reprehensible) in that. Bridge is all about choosing the call that you believe will give you the best score. It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly the same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to change the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose not to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). In L16B2, there is another example where the laws try to make a board playable: in that law, the players are explicitly given the chance to say no. I find it very sensible to let the players decide: some players (including me) will usually prefer to play the cards even if there are all these problems with bids meaning more or less different things, other players would prefer to go for the 60%. In some settings, it is important to cater to the former, in other settings (primarily championships), the score is important. Letting the players choose (and preferably explicitly instead of by a 7 NT call) seems to me to be a good idea. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 05:50:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JJl8I08988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 05:47:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6JJl0t08944 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 05:47:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-85-47.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.85.47]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6JJdSf10133; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:39:28 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003e01c1108a$bfd31ea0$2f55063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , , , References: <6b.174d0fe5.288749f3@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:18:50 +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: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? . > > To return to the original scenario (i.e. West > has passed in the previous auction attempt), > I like the idea that Law 88 covers this with > the words "choice of his own" which I'm sure > was not the intention of that wording. I > think it was intended to cover the cases > where a player has a stated choice to make, > i.e. Law 16B and Law 13 B) but I'm mulling > this over as a place to hang the hat when > tasked to cite a Law for the action that I > would take against 7 NT. The artificial > score is clearly through choice of his own, > and therefore he is not entitled to the > protection this Law provides. IN facf the > more I think about it the better I like it. > Maybe Grattan can enlighten us on the > intent. > +=+ As to Law 88, going back to my 1985 file the earliest item I found was a letter to Kaplan with my British Bridge League hat on. I said that his commentary on Law 88 should be set in full as a footnote to that Law. Obviously I should find his earlier text somewhere but it has eluded me today. When I come forward to the publication of the 1987 Laws the accompanying message about Law 88 simply states: 'The indecisive wording of the 1975 Laws is nicely cleared up. We are now pointed to the fact that Law 88 applies only in the circumstances of an "artificial score" not in the case of an "assigned score".' I have been away for a couple of days. The thread is extending nicely - I have not been able to read it all - and it appears there are still those who, judging the player to be a sinner albeit he has broken no law, deem it appropriate to expunge their feelings of offended morality by playing God. This makes it a bad time for legislation and the Rule of Law, not to mention the WBF CoP which espouses the principle that it requires a breach of Law or Regulation before there can be application of a penalty. ~ 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 Jul 20 06:07:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JK4AD15101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:04:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f167.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6JK44t15068 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:04:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:01:28 -0700 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:01:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:01:28 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2001 20:01:28.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[98E1C2D0:01C1108D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Jesper Dybdal [snip] >If the player has selected 7 NT as the call that is most likely to give him >a >good score, then I can see nothing illegal (or otherwise reprehensible) in >that. Bridge is all about choosing the call that you believe will give you >the best score. > >It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly >the >same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and >mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to >change >the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose >not >to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). > I agree with everything you say except for this last statement. Perhaps I am playing against Mr. & Mrs. Terribleplayers against whom I average 80% of the MPs. I may be willing to forgo my automatic A+ in order to have a shot at my 'average' against this pair. -- Dave Kent _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 06:13:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JKB6C17521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:11:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6JKAxt17485 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-85-47.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.85.47]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6JJdYf10279; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:39:53 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:30:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > From: Ed Reppert > > Let me quote the whole sentence, and put the emphasis on a different word: > > > > "If any *call* differs in any way from the corresponding call in the > > first auction, the Director shall cancel the board." > > > > Do you see now why I had a problem? > > Ton, Grattan: perhaps the footnote in L26 needs to be added to L15C (if > you keep 15C in anything like its present form). > -- +=+ Kaplan's written comments to the drafting committee in 1985 make it clear he intended a difference of meaning to constitute 'differs' in this Law as much as a call of a different denomination or level. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 06:25:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JKMcE21566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:22:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6JKMTt21529 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:22:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA24872 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA27374 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:19:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107192019.QAA27374@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > When I come forward to the publication of the 1987 > Laws the accompanying message about Law > 88 simply states: 'The indecisive wording of > the 1975 Laws is nicely cleared up. We are > now pointed to the fact that Law 88 applies > only in the circumstances of an "artificial > score" not in the case of an "assigned score".' Eureka! (I think.) Before 1987, L88 (L84 in 1975) said "required to take an adjusted score," so it could have been understood to apply to assigned as well as artificial scores. This may be the origin of the all too frequently seen "(some assigned result) or 60%, whichever is better." Of course this has been illegal (or at least a dreadful idea) since 1987, but it doesn't surprise me that quite a few TD's and AC's haven't got the word. Or perhaps my wild surmise is completely wrong. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 06:28:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JKQCg22810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:26:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6JKQ5t22776 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 06:26:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6JKNYE00925 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:23:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107192023.f6JKNYE00925@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:23:33 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Kent" at Jul 19, 2001 04:01:28 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 Kent writes: > > >From: Jesper Dybdal > > [snip] > > >If the player has selected 7 NT as the call that is most likely to give him > >a > >good score, then I can see nothing illegal (or otherwise reprehensible) in > >that. Bridge is all about choosing the call that you believe will give you > >the best score. > > > >It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly > >the > >same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and > >mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to > >change > >the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose > >not > >to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). > > > > I agree with everything you say except for this last statement. Perhaps I > am playing against Mr. & Mrs. Terribleplayers against whom I average 80% of > the MPs. I may be willing to forgo my automatic A+ in order to have a shot > at my 'average' against this pair. > I was thinking about this too. I think this is why the director *has* to make it clear that any different call with limit you to A+. Perhaps the answer to the dilema is to allow the NOS to A) accept A+ B) Waive the right to A+ before the new auction starts (accepting the potential the their opposition will end up with extra info.) C) Accept A+ as per current regs. (I'm not sure whether they would have to accept B before the auction starts.) -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 07:14:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JLAi905887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:10:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6JLAbt05852 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:10:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6JL6f104056 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:06:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200107181615.MAA19801@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:06:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >How is one supposed to mark the card? And what does that imply for >alerting? Check both boxes and write (occ) next to the 4 card box. Since both boxes are in black, no alert. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO1dMO72UW3au93vOEQLMQACdFrl4b8bnJ8YBFx4VWU+xwjf0arYAoP9K s9tdbgfmWQnVW/GZhgu5Jo6S =wSY1 -----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 Jul 20 07:34:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JLVDY13138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:31:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6JLV6t13096 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:31:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6JLR6517487 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:27:08 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@dodona> References: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@dodona> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:19:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >+=+ Kaplan's written comments to the >drafting committee in 1985 make it >clear he intended a difference of meaning >to constitute 'differs' in this Law as much >as a call of a different denomination or >level. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ That's nice. I'm not privy to Mr. Kaplan's comments, and I imagine there are a lot of folks who don't know of them. :-( Perhaps we need someone to play Blackstone for the Laws of Bridge? Any volunteers? :-) 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/AwUBO1dRAr2UW3au93vOEQLEwACgtf8C4zOO+s8lIiTZ8lOTeumBd9QAn1bd ljANPui3+3CjpLyfOpMsihBv =n3tA -----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 Jul 20 07:52:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JLn8F19545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:49:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6JLn2t19508 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:49:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6JLkUL02979 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:46:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107192146.f6JLkUL02979@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] K-S alerting question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:46:30 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Jul 19, 2001 05:06:42 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 Ed Reppert writes: > > >How is one supposed to mark the card? And what does that imply for > >alerting? > > Check both boxes and write (occ) next to the 4 card box. Since both > boxes are in black, no alert. > You can also do what I do with my 1D openers. On the ACBL CC I check 3+ and 4+ and write a note pointing back to the 3D box reading 4=4=3=2, 12-14 or 18-19 only. I can write small enough to make that readable. (Well sort of at any rate. But the opp will be able to ask a clarifying question and should be aware that 3 card openings aren't common.) -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 08:15:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JMEgF28650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:14:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6JMEWt28597 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 08:14:33 +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 15NM1Q-00033k-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:11:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:06:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) References: <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200107190123.SAA24045@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Without commenting on the *decision* perhaps I might comment on the >> bridge logic. >> >> There are a number of good players who have a view that sequences of >> this sort show two-suiters. If you had a one-suiter that might bid 4S >> on the second round then you would jump in spades on the first round. >> But not necessarily with a two-suiter. >> >> So if a good player bid >> >> 1H 1S 4H P >> P 4S >> >> I would not be surprised if he was two-suited, and I would not be >> surprised if the spades were shorter. >> >> Of course, whether this pair plays a two-suiter convention, and how, >> would affect this. > >Good point. In fact, now that you mention it, it reminds of a >somewhat similar situation in the Master Solvers' Club two or three >years ago. I think the auction was something like 1something (dbl) 2S >... where 2S was weak; and the 2S bidder later bid 4S uninvited. The >panel was supposed to figure out that this showed something other just >a whole lot of spades. > >This may or may not apply in the case of a 1S overcall, however. >Depending on how one plays, there are hands with lots of spades that >are too strong to bid 4S right away (but not strong enough to start >with a double in one's system); if you bid that way both with strong >hands and with weaker preempts, you'll never be able to find a slam >when you hold the strong hand. Of course, someone could decide it's >worthwhile to sacrifice that ability in order to gain on the >2-suiters. If they are *strong* with a lot of spades then surely after 1H 1S 4H P P you double? -- 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 Jul 20 09:09:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6JN8WL17756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:08:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6JN8Qt17735 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:08:27 +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 QAA14935; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:05:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200107192305.QAA14935@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation (judgment ruling) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:06:22 BST." Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:05:52 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > If they are *strong* with a lot of spades then surely after 1H 1S 4H P > P you double? Wouldn't that show interest in the unbid suits? Something like 6=0=4=3 might be a good double, but I don't think one could double with, say, 7=2=3=1. Perhaps our methods are just different. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 20 20:58:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6KArmO20786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:53:48 +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-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 f6KArft20781 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:53:43 +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 15NXs6-000OOT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 01:21:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.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 Jesper Dybdal writes >It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly the >same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and >mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to change >the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose not >to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). I dislike A+/A-. People are here to play bridge, and in a small and friendly club they do not want averages. Similar to the position when they have seen a card from another hand: I usually allow it to be played in a club or minor event. When we make Laws we must remember the players in Cheltenham as well as in the EBL Championships in Tenerife: we must remember the Methodist churches in New England as well as the NABC in Toronto. -- 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 Jul 21 00:13:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6KEBkL01416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:11:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6KEBZt01359 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:11:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id OAA02047 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:09:11 GMT Message-ID: <5+TvjUAksDW7EwQr@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:07:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.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 >Jesper Dybdal writes > >>It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly the >>same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and >>mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to change >>the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose not >>to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). > > I dislike A+/A-. People are here to play bridge, and in a small and >friendly club they do not want averages. Similar to the position when >they have seen a card from another hand: I usually allow it to be played >in a club or minor event. > > When we make Laws we must remember the players in Cheltenham as well >as in the EBL Championships in Tenerife: we must remember the Methodist >churches in New England as well as the NABC in Toronto. > We must remember the Japanese ladies game as well as the Young Chelsea -- 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 Jul 21 00:55:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6KEsHL06066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:54:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6KEs9t06025 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 00:54:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-62-27.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.62.27]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6KEpPf28701; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:51:25 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001301c1112b$881618e0$1b3e7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu><003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:50:57 +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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 19 July 2001 22:19 Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >+=+ Kaplan's written comments to the > >drafting committee in 1985 make it > >clear he intended a difference of meaning > >to constitute 'differs' in this Law as much > >as a call of a different denomination or > >level. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > That's nice. I'm not privy to Mr. Kaplan's comments, > and I imagine there are a lot of folks who don't > know of them. :-( > > Perhaps we need someone to play Blackstone for the Laws of Bridge? Any volunteers? :-) > +=+ The following is extracted from the European Bridge League Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (Endicott & Hansen), published 1992. [Known colloquially as 'The Black Book' because my copy is bound in red.] "In Law 15C2 the Director must treat as 'different' any bid which is straightforwardly different in the denomination or level at which it is made, and also any bid which corresponds in its denomination and level but which has a significantly different meaning than it did in the first auction; the same considerations apply to Pass, Double. Redouble where these calls occur at the same stage as in the first auction and with no significant change of meaning, well and good, but otherwise cancel the board. Where it is suggested that two calls which are different as to denomination, number of tricks, etc. have the same meaning, these calls are nevertheless "different" and to be treated so." It seems likely that David Stevenson and I are to be asked to update this publication for the 1997 Laws and today's usage. I believe that if it is done the opus will appear on web sites and thus be referable world-wide (at least for comparison with practices in other Zones). ~ 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 Jul 21 04:02:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6KI0bx26427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 04:00:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6KI0Ut26423 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 04:00:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-61.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.61]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BFEB836D1B; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:57:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004201c11144$aac26740$3db6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:32:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan: > It seems likely that David Stevenson and I are to be >asked to update this publication for the 1997 Laws and >today's usage. I thought this to be asked or requested already 2 - 3 years ago? It might be better to wait for the next edition now. ton I believe that if it is done the opus will >appear on web sites and thus be referable world-wide >(at least for comparison with practices in other Zones). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 21 06:11:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6KK7V806594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 06:07:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6KK7Ot06590 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 06:07:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (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 f6KK3TW07503; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 16:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001301c1112b$881618e0$1b3e7bd5@pacific> References: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu><003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@ dodona> <001301c1112b$881618e0$1b3e7bd5@pacific> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:56:47 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >+=+ The following is extracted from the European >Bridge League Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate >Bridge (Endicott & Hansen), published 1992. [Known >colloquially as 'The Black Book' because my copy is >bound in red.] [snip commentary] Thank you sir. It seems you anticipated my comment by nearly a decade. Sorry, I didn't know. :-) > It seems likely that David Stevenson and I are to be >asked to update this publication for the 1997 Laws and >today's usage. I believe that if it is done the opus will >appear on web sites and thus be referable world-wide >(at least for comparison with practices in other Zones). Excellent! I look forward to it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO1iO372UW3au93vOEQKblQCgyBlRFbgR+UIZODfALRyaZLsqqScAnArw ZAZlCdhELtukOwEEx8Unf9Ok =kEoT -----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 Jul 21 08:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6KMOdY11223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 08:24:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6KMOWt11219 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 08:24:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15Nieg-000Mi9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:39:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <004201c11144$aac26740$3db6f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <004201c11144$aac26740$3db6f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton kooijman writes >Grattan: > >> It seems likely that David Stevenson and I are to be >>asked to update this publication for the 1997 Laws and >>today's usage. >I thought this to be asked or requested already 2 - 3 years ago? It might be >better to wait for the next edition now. The EBL has never formally ratified a request, as far as I am aware, but are considering doing so at this moment. If we produce one now, admittedly at what seems the wrong time, it has the advantage that it is done once. If we are told to go ahead and do not do it the EBL's offer may not be repeated! Since the current thinking would be to produce it to the web initially, rather than publish it as a hard copy, it would then be easy enough to up date it in a few years' time when a new Law book appears. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 21 13:59:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6L3r1u26141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:53:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6L3qrt26137 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 13:52:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-120-137-177.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.120.137.177] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6L3nZf29236; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 04:49:35 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000601c11198$61638da0$b18978d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <004201c11144$aac26740$3db6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:20:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Bridge Laws ; Ed Reppert Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > Grattan: > > > It seems likely that David Stevenson and > > I are to be asked to update this publication for > > the 1997 Laws and today's usage. > > I thought this to be asked or requested already > 2 - 3 years ago? It might be better to wait for > the next edition now. > > ton > +=+ The earlier occasion was lost because the money was not budgeted. I am now led to believe that the situation has changed. The 'proposal' came to me verbally after the Paris etage; in Tenerife a conversation did suggest that it was desired it should go ahead. If the new treatise is produced as an e-publication, with no hard copies, updating in future (e.g.2005) would be comparatively easy. However, I am not the driver of this vehicle. ~ 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 Jul 21 14:44:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6L4bSC28572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:37:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (scooby-s1.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6L4bKt28564 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:37:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-103-45.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.103.45]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6L4YTf10158; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:34:30 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <004701c1119e$a73296e0$b18978d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu><003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@dodona> <001301c1112b$881618e0$1b3e7bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:35:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott Cc: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > Thank you sir. It seems you anticipated my comment > by nearly a decade. Sorry, I didn't know. :-) > +=+ The book never got the North American coverage it deserved. It was probably regarded as too radical. :-) But copies, now outdated, do pop up in distant parts of the world. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [On the main subject of this remarkable thread I am coming to the conclusion that play should never proceed. It seems to me, for one thing, that it may be onerous to require the one side to repeat the same calls against different opponents. I might wish to bid quite differently against Bocchi and Duboin than in the first instance against Probst and De Wael. Or vice- versa. Perhaps the one side, at least, should have the former right to opt for the AAS.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 21 18:56:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6L8q1615983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:52:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6L8pst15950 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 18:51:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.9.161]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010721084918.GHIT295.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:49:18 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c111c2$0d36b020$a109ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <200107181617.MAA19810@cfa183.harvard.edu><003f01c1108a$cc86c480$2f55063e@dodona> <001301c1112b$881618e0$1b3e7bd5@pacific> <004701c1119e$a73296e0$b18978d5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:49:27 +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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 5:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > Grattan Endicott "Hear my words carefully. Some are > spoken not by me, but by a man in my > position." [Norman McCaig] > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Reppert > To: Grattan Endicott > Cc: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:56 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > > > > > Thank you sir. It seems you anticipated my comment > > by nearly a decade. Sorry, I didn't know. :-) > > > +=+ The book never got the North American coverage > it deserved. It was probably regarded as too radical. :-) > But copies, now outdated, do pop up in distant parts > of the world. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [On the main subject of this remarkable thread > I am coming to the conclusion that play should > never proceed. It seems to me, for one thing, > that it may be onerous to require the one side > to repeat the same calls against different > opponents. I might wish to bid quite differently > against Bocchi and Duboin than in the first > instance against Probst and De Wael. Or vice- > versa. Perhaps the one side, at least, should > have the former right to opt for the AAS.] > Apart from which I am sure Alain Gottcheiner would be playing "Starry" against Bocci and Duboin, whereas "Overcast" would be the order of the day against Probst and De Wael. We did agree it was OK to have a different set of CCs for different opps didn't we? Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 22 01:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6LEuax23536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 00:56:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6LEuRt23524 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 00:56:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-5.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.5]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C36EF846C for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:53:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:49:04 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <004701c1119e$a73296e0$b18978d5@dodona> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott (Sat 21 Jul 2001 05:35) writes >[On the main subject of this remarkable thread >I am coming to the conclusion that play should >never proceed. It seems to me, for one thing, >that it may be onerous to require the one side >to repeat the same calls against different >opponents. I might wish to bid quite differently >against Bocchi and Duboin than in the first >instance against Probst and De Wael. Or vice- >versa. Perhaps the one side, at least, should >have the former right to opt for the AAS.] L15C is a well-intentioned attempt by the law-makers to play the board if at all possible. It is abundantly clear, however, from the many examples in this thread that this procedure is unsafe. At club level the TD, who is normally also playing, does not have time to consider possible UI from the differences between two apparently identical auctions. IMO it would be better if L15C were scrapped and the board scored Av?/Av+ for the correct pairing. The errant EW should be sent to their correct destination - conceding Av+/Av- if they are subsequently required to play this board. DWS challenged the question of NS's responsibility for ensuring they have the correct opponents. For simple movements without table movement cards, I would not penalise NS if the wrong opponents arrived - if this were the case here, NS would get their Av+. For Howell and other more complicated movements - at our club with exactly 12 tables we routinely play a double weave Mitchell(!) - where table movement cards have been provided, NS are always asked to ensure that they have the correct boards *and opponents*. In that case I would hold NS "partially at fault" and they would receive Av= (L12C1). As for the 7NT bid... West could have achieved the same effect much more subtly Ю la Larry Cohen in Lille. If you jump with righteous indignation on 7NT all you are penalising is honesty. If you are of this mind are you going to be equally rigorous with a slightly off-centre bid or a suspect pass? In many cases of "rule exploitation" (but not here) much of the authorities' indignation stems from their failure, when drawing up competition regulations, to envisage relatively straightforward loopholes. I have in mind the 70's cricket example where a County captain (I think it was B C Rose of Somerset) playing the final match in the group stages of the Benson & Hedges Cup declared after one over (or less) at 4 for 0 (or some such) because this ensured (due to an ill-advised tie-splitting procedure) that Somerset qualified for the next stage of the competition. It didn't work - a large number of spectators were understandably unhappy at this development and an outraged MCC disqualified Somerset from the competition! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 22 01:46:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6LFhet25870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 01:43:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6LFhXt25866 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 01:43:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 17E01D7CAD for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 17:40:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 17:40:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6LFhZt25867 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:36:14 +0200, I wrote: >It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly the >same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and >mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to change >the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose not >to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). I just happened to see what I actually wrote here. The "A-" part was of course not intended. Please read it as if it said "an artificial adjusted score" instead of "A+/A-". And as Grattan points out, the possibly somewhat offending side that remains at the table should also have a chance to choose the ArtAS. So I would prefer a law that explicitly gave both sides that chance. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 22 02:03:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6LG0E526727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 02:00:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6LG07t26716 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 02:00:08 +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 LAA06517 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA15816 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:57:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107211557.LAA15816@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > [On the main subject of this remarkable thread > I am coming to the conclusion that play should > never proceed. As others have pointed out, 'never' is too strong. When I go to the club, I go to play boards, not to collect artificial scores. Playing at a slight disadvantage because of a mistake in the movement doesn't bother me. (Besides, a mere 60% isn't good enough.) On the other hand, were I ever to play in a world championship (OK, OK, stop laughing!), I might have a different view. Somebody mentioned the idea of coordinating L16B and L15. That makes sense to me. One or more players has some extra information, and there is a judgment question about whether the information is material or not and therefore whether or not the board can still be played. Whatever you think should be done -- and as we have seen, reasonable people disagree -- the two situations seem pretty closely analogous. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 22 05:06:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6LJ3DH29598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:03:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6LJ35t29591 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 05:03:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id TAA05011 for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2001 19:00:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 19:57:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <004701c1119e$a73296e0$b18978d5@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Brambledown writes >>Grattan Endicott (Sat 21 Jul 2001 05:35) writes >>[On the main subject of this remarkable thread >>I am coming to the conclusion that play should >>never proceed. It seems to me, for one thing, >>that it may be onerous to require the one side >>to repeat the same calls against different >>opponents. I might wish to bid quite differently >>against Bocchi and Duboin than in the first >>instance against Probst and De Wael. Or vice- >>versa. Perhaps the one side, at least, should >>have the former right to opt for the AAS.] > >L15C is a well-intentioned attempt by the law-makers to play the board if at >all possible. It is abundantly clear, however, from the many examples in >this thread that this procedure is unsafe. At club level the TD, who is >normally also playing, does not have time to consider possible UI from the >differences between two apparently identical auctions. IMO it would be >better if L15C were scrapped and the board scored Av?/Av+ for the correct >pairing. The errant EW should be sent to their correct destination - >conceding Av+/Av- if they are subsequently required to play this board. > >DWS challenged the question of NS's responsibility for ensuring they have >the correct opponents. For simple movements without table movement cards, >I would not penalise NS if the wrong opponents arrived - if this were the >case here, NS would get their Av+. For Howell and other more complicated >movements - at our club with exactly 12 tables we routinely play a double >weave Mitchell(!) So did the YC when I directed there. But the YC players don't need guide cards. I'd just announce "a double weave, and EW to move the boards", they'd all groan and get on with it. I never had a problem. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 22 19:17:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6M9Dwb02148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:13:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.link.net (mail.link.net [213.131.64.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6M9Dot02104 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:13:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from link.net ([65.199.128.5]) by mail.link.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:11:30 +0200 Message-ID: <3B5A9800.EC90BAC9@link.net> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:08:16 +0300 From: "S.S" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] How would u have ruled? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk North Coast, Egypt During the last quarter of a tourney... Power failure, small light running in room, there is an ashtray on your right on the table, atmosphere can lead you to explode, and you don't see your RHO's bid: Pass Pass 1N ... and you bid 2N Pass Pass 1N 2N Seconds pass and you sit up to discover that there is a 1N card and you come up with: "oops I did not see your bid" RHO calls the director says, she is conveying to her pd that she has 2N points. Director says, go on with the board: Pass Pass 1N 2N Pass 3D Pass 4C Pass 5C Pass 6C Pass Pass Pass I take my pd's understanding of the bidding as if nothing was said, making 3D a natural suit and not transfers I do not alert and bid my Club suit, having: AKJ A54 98 AKQ34 6C makes, dummy holds 4 trumps with J, AKD 5th, single H and 3 small Spades. RHO calls the Director and exclaims: " 6C making! " Score sheet holds games of 3N and 5C, none of 6C. Director asks about our conventions, what is 2N over 1N, we explain how the bidding went. What was obvious was, RHO was bidding a not natural 1N, trying to spoil the board, he managed to make us reach slam, which without his intervention could not be reached. First his NT was in third seat, common practise here to bid 1N as barrage with few points. And truth is he had 5 points and a 5 card H suit. He did not double 6C that was another indication for me that his opening was fake. His point was, she indicated to her pd that she had a strong hand. That it was very possible for my pd to Pass my 4C bid. My pd held: x x x x AKJxx J x x x Director ruled score 60/60. Now my pd calls another director, who says score stands. How would you have ruled ? Sandra -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 22 23:16:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6MDD5601402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:13:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6MDCxt01398 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:13:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.59]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010722131022.PWIO351.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:10:22 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c112af$b4579520$3b04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <3B5A9800.EC90BAC9@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] How would u have ruled? Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:10:38 +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: "S.S" To: Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:08 AM Subject: [BLML] How would u have ruled? > North Coast, Egypt > During the last quarter of a tourney... > > Power failure, small light running in room, there is an ashtray on your > right on the table, atmosphere can lead you to explode, and you don't see > your RHO's bid: > Pass Pass 1N ... > > and you bid 2N > > Pass Pass 1N 2N > > > Seconds pass and you sit up to discover that there is a 1N card and you > come up with: > "oops I did not see your bid" > > RHO calls the director says, she is conveying to her pd that she has 2N > points. Director says, go on with the board: > > Pass Pass 1N 2N > Pass 3D Pass 4C > Pass 5C Pass 6C > Pass Pass Pass > > I take my pd's understanding of the bidding as if nothing was said, making > 3D a natural suit and not transfers I do not alert and bid my Club suit, > having: > > AKJ A54 98 AKQ34 > > 6C makes, dummy holds 4 trumps with J, AKD 5th, single H and 3 small > Spades. > RHO calls the Director and exclaims: " 6C making! " > > Score sheet holds games of 3N and 5C, none of 6C. > Director asks about our conventions, what is 2N over 1N, we explain how the > > bidding went. > What was obvious was, RHO was bidding a not natural 1N, trying to spoil the > > board, he managed to make us reach slam, which without his intervention > could not be reached. > First his NT was in third seat, common practise here to bid 1N as barrage > with few points. And truth is he had 5 points and a 5 card H suit. He did > not double 6C that was another indication for me that his opening was fake. > > His point was, she indicated to her pd that she had a strong hand. That it > was very possible for my pd to Pass my 4C bid. > My pd held: > x x x x AKJxx J x x x > > Director ruled score 60/60. > Now my pd calls another director, who says score stands. > Well I wouldn't have ruled 60%/60% for sure. The board hs been played. > What does a 2NT overcall of 1NT mean in your system. If it shows the minors, or 2 suited hand otherwise I would allow the 5c, so I would allow the result to stand. If it shows a balanced hand of a definite range then I would rule the contract back to 4C - I think that Pass is a logical alternative. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 01:34:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6MFVJu02376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:31:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6MFVCt02337 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaui0i.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.18]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA07964 for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:28:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c112c2$f6a13540$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3B5A9800.EC90BAC9@link.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] How would u have ruled? Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:28:27 -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: "S.S" To: Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 5:08 AM Subject: [BLML] How would u have ruled? > North Coast, Egypt > During the last quarter of a tourney... > > Power failure, small light running in room, there is an ashtray on your > right on the table, atmosphere can lead you to explode, and you don't see > your RHO's bid: > Pass Pass 1N ... > > and you bid 2N > > Pass Pass 1N 2N > > > Seconds pass and you sit up to discover that there is a 1N card and you > come up with: > "oops I did not see your bid" > > RHO calls the director says, she is conveying to her pd that she has 2N > points. Director says, go on with the board: > > Pass Pass 1N 2N > Pass 3D Pass 4C > Pass 5C Pass 6C > Pass Pass Pass > > I take my pd's understanding of the bidding as if nothing was said, making > 3D a natural suit and not transfers I do not alert and bid my Club suit, > having: > > AKJ A54 98 AKQ34 > > 6C makes, dummy holds 4 trumps with J, AKD 5th, single H and 3 small > Spades. > RHO calls the Director and exclaims: " 6C making! " > > My pd held: > x x x x AKJxx J x x x > > Director ruled score 60/60. > Now my pd calls another director, who says score stands. > > How would you have ruled ? > Sandra > First off, you can appeal the ruling, but not call another director. The second director should not have changed the ruling (unless the second director was the Director in Chief of the event). The DIC is part of the appeals process, a second TD is not. I would have given a PP to your partner for summoning a second TD. A+/A+ is a lazy ruling, and wrong. The actual ruling would depend on what your 2N call means in your system. We have to determine if the UI has affected the auction and, if so, in what way. What happens if 2N shows the minors? 3D is impeccable, no LA regardless of meaning. You had a strong hand, and with the knowledge that partner can cover diamonds, 3N is a LA. Is it suggested by the UI over 4C? No, not really. I'm assuming that 3D is forcing over your 2N opener, since partner must get the auction to game with those values. If your partner thought that you had a two suiter, the 3D call could be on nothing. IMO the knowledge that partner has some values and diamonds suggests 3N over 4C, so I'm OK up to the 4C call. Once you bid 4C, partner has no option but 5C and 6C is a clear call (no LA) with your controls and strong suit, particularly after the 3D call. I let this score stand. I might rule differently depending on your actual systemic meaning of 2N. 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 Mon Jul 23 07:41:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6MLbN824306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:37:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6MLbGt24265 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:37:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D9D2D7CAF for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:34:37 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:34:37 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <10hmlt0ian03v59tep6i620fgfujaa80b3@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6MLbIt24280 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:36:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > >>As for L12C3, there seem to be two interpretations of "equity" as used >>there. >> >>(1) An AC can impose any score adjustment it thinks is appropriate, with >>no constraints. This is redefining "equity" as meaning any actions that >>the AC believes mete out the right amount of justice for each side. >>Score adjustments may be affected by factors other than than those cited >>by L12C2. > > No ACs use this definition. No well-educated ACs use that definition. >Well, ok, ACs may go wrong, but they do >not in theory. This is the famous "we don't want L12C3 in the ACBL >because we do not believe there are any rules covering L12C3" camp. It >does not exist, except in [a] the minds of certain people in the ACBL >and [b] certain ACs which have made mistakes. And of course in [c] L12C3 itself which gives the AC an unlimited right (unless it is limited by a regulation) to "vary an assigned adjusted score in order to achieve equity". Since the laws have no definition of "equity", that means that the AC can replace a L12C2 adjustment with anything that it believes will result in something that the AC itself would call "equity". I think L12C3 is terrible in itself if not supplemented by guidelines or regulations about how to use it. On the other hand, with such guidelines L12C3 can be very valuable. I would personally prefer that L12C3 itself said that its intended use is for assigning weighted averages of possible outcomes of the hand. Without that, you really do need guidelines before using L12C3. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 07:42:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6MLdHV24970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:39:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6MLdAt24938 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:39:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id EBE92D7CAF for ; Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:36:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:36:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <4ohmlt8dc991bsis2cb5u19of5b7ot93vc@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <10hmlt0ian03v59tep6i620fgfujaa80b3@nuser.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <10hmlt0ian03v59tep6i620fgfujaa80b3@nuser.dybdal.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6MLdCt24948 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: >On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:36:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: Oops - I've just realized how old that message I answered was. I had no intention of reviving a dead and not very interesting thread - sorry. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 17:10:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6N72aL18656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:02:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6N72Tt18651 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:02:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-67-67.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.67.67] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15OZfz-000Nwm-00; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 07:58:48 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c11345$479060c0$78377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <10hmlt0ian03v59tep6i620fgfujaa80b3@nuser.dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:00:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? > > > I think L12C3 is terrible in itself if not > supplemented by guidelines or regulations > about how to use it. On the other hand, > with such guidelines L12C3 can be very > valuable. > > I would personally prefer that L12C3 itself > said that its intended use is for assigning > weighted averages of possible outcomes of > the hand. Without that, you really do need > guidelines before using L12C3. > +=+ To repeat what I have several times said, 12C3 (in fact the antecedent footnote) was introduced because the European Bridge League resisted the change represented by 12C2 unless latitude was allowed for the EBL to continue its practice under the previous law of assigning a single adjusted table score which it considered a fair adjustment of a table result following an irregularity. Having obtained that goal there was no attempt to refine the law, and indeed the sophisticated concept of a weighted score was unknown at the time. EBL committees continued to enter scores which they considered to be meet and the EBL had no reason to take the question further. What should be noted is that the law as published by the WBF says 'to do equity'. This is to say that it allows the AC to extend what it believes to be fair treatment to the two sides when it considers 12C2 does not provide a fair balance between them. To quote the EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge (1992): "This (12C2) is an absolute mandate for the Appeals Committee to vary a 12C2 adjustment in such a way as it considers to give the best available equity on the hand." It does indeed make the AC the final arbiter in the matter of equity and does not intend to bind the hands of the committee in its judgement of the nearest to equity that is to be had. ~ 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 Jul 23 17:13:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6N78SI18677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:08:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6N78Mt18672 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:08:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-58-125.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.58.125] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15OZmE-00096w-00; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:05:15 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c11346$1a3369a0$7d3a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Jesper Dybdal" Subject: [BLML] Correction Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:06:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:34:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-120-138-28.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.120.138.28] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6N7Vg902905 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:31:42 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000f01c11349$be9ec0e0$1c8a78d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <023901c0bfe1$97eccfc0$90a5aec7@ix.netcom.com> <000001c0c051$ab8e7d60$3b30d2cc@san.rr.com> <10hmlt0ian03v59tep6i620fgfujaa80b3@nuser.dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:32:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? > On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:36:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > > >Marvin L. French writes > > > >>As for L12C3, there seem to be two > >>interpretations of "equity" as used > >>there. > >> +=+ In my view fair treatment ('equity' = 'that which is fair and right') consists in compensating for, or removing the effects of, the damage caused by an irregularity. Some such thought underlies the following: "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." [WBF CoP]. ~ 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 Jul 23 19:11:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6N99YM12333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:09:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6N99Pt12289 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:09:26 +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 15Obfm-0001kr-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:06:46 +0000 Message-ID: <+I5+jVAgE2W7EwCi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:26:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <004701c1119e$a73296e0$b18978d5@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f6N99St12302 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >L15C is a well-intentioned attempt by the law-makers to play the board if at >all possible. It is abundantly clear, however, from the many examples in >this thread that this procedure is unsafe. At club level the TD, who is >normally also playing, does not have time to consider possible UI from the >differences between two apparently identical auctions. IMO it would be >better if L15C were scrapped and the board scored Av?/Av+ for the correct >pairing. The errant EW should be sent to their correct destination - >conceding Av+/Av- if they are subsequently required to play this board. You must remember that this method of proceeding is against what 90% of club players want: they did not pay their money to get averages. Perhaps it is not too unreasonable to allow an unsafe procedure for the good of the players. >DWS challenged the question of NS's responsibility for ensuring they have >the correct opponents. For simple movements without table movement cards, >I would not penalise NS if the wrong opponents arrived - if this were the >case here, NS would get their Av+. For Howell and other more complicated >movements - at our club with exactly 12 tables we routinely play a double >weave Mitchell(!) - where table movement cards have been provided, NS are >always asked to ensure that they have the correct boards *and opponents*. >In that case I would hold NS "partially at fault" and they would receive Av= >(L12C1). I only challenge it when no instruction has been given. Of course the TD could instruct a player to check the opponents. In Howells it is quite normal to ask both sides to check. There is nothing to stop a Director requiring West to check, for that matter. Custom+practice may also dictate an approach. But in the absence of such an instruction I do not see any reason to penalise N/S. >As for the 7NT bid... West could have achieved the same effect much more >subtly Ю la Larry Cohen in Lille. If you jump with righteous indignation >on 7NT all you are penalising is honesty. If you are of this mind are you >going to be equally rigorous with a slightly off-centre bid or a suspect >pass? We were discussing what the Law said and meant. Once we have decided what it means [and I think jump with righteous indignation is a fairly poor way of describing the procedure of reading the Law book and applying it to a situation] then there are no doubt problems of deciding when it applies. It is much easier to consider the clear situations [like with a 7NT bid] to decide what the Law is, and then decide how to implement it in doubtful cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 19:40:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6N9bsL18968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:37:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6N9bkt18960 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:37:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.253]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6N9Z7n00578 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:35:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:53:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > There are some people who consider that the player may have acted > illegally by bidding 7NT. In Alain's example, no-one did anything that > could be illegal. Thus they are not comparable. > I shall not comment on Alain's example. IMO, there is nothing illegal about the 7NT bid, as such. > For people that have made up their minds that the 7NT bid was not > illegal, the two situations are comparable since in neither case was > there any illegal bid. > > Since I have argued that the 7NT bid may have been illegal, and am > still waiting for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I am in the camp of > people who do not think the situations comparable. > David, you cannot mean to say that it is illegal to bid 7NT. You must mean something else. The only thing you can be saying is that you do not consider the card of 7NT that is put on the table as a "bid". Rather, you equate this with the player stating "I do not want to play this board, pease give me 60%". I agree (since recently) that this question is not to be answered positively. Thus you can say : "no sir, that is not a call, please make a more serious one." But I don't believe you can say it is illegal to ban 7NT as such. Now of course you have a problem. The player is looking at a 9-count, and he's mad at you for not allowing him to go for A+. So he opens 1Sp and you have to apply L15C and you give him A+. What are you planning to do, you who seems to think the player ought not to act in this manner? Please if you believe you can rule in this case, adapt it and give him 10HCP or even 11. I agree that the laws at present do not allow that a player can opt for a AAS, but what can we do to stop him ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 19:40:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6N9bsx18967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:37:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6N9bit18958 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:37:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.253]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6N9Z3n00504 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:35:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B556863.D0CB9E97@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:43:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004101c10f60$38dd7880$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen wrote: > > > Law 80F could be used if an SO wants all players to dress funny during the Carnaval in The Netherlands. But 80F prevents them from giving extra tricks to the pair that consumed more beer. ;o) > extra tricks, no - extra points for the final ranking, yes OK ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 20:46:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NAiGB19134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6NAi4t19127 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 20:44:10 +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; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:42:47 +0200 Message-ID: <00bf01c11364$3eef1dc0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Herman De Wael" , "BLML" References: <000701c10ab5$6fe93f80$6f07ff3e@vnmvhhid> <007501c10b2d$50a66300$7c63063e@dodona> <5HmARjArbsT7Ewqo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <018801c10e95$5c586f20$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004101c10f60$38dd7880$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <3B556863.D0CB9E97@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:43:00 +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 f6NAiCt19131 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 80 E and F (was Law 25 A) > Rik Terveen wrote: > > > > > > Law 80F could be used if an SO wants all players to dress funny during the Carnaval in The Netherlands. But 80F prevents them from giving extra tricks to the pair that consumed more beer. ;o) > > > > extra tricks, no - extra points for the final ranking, yes > > OK ? > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > As long as the extra points are fore a side competition I don't object to that at all. It won't give me much of a chance to win though. And if the quality of the beer is factored in, you must be beating me by quite a few boards ;o) 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 Mon Jul 23 22:50:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NCmGt05854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:48:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6NCm8t05813 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:48:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id MAA09213 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:45:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:44:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@127.0.0.1> <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> There are some people who consider that the player may have acted >> illegally by bidding 7NT. In Alain's example, no-one did anything that >> could be illegal. Thus they are not comparable. >> > >I shall not comment on Alain's example. > >IMO, there is nothing illegal about the 7NT bid, as such. > >> For people that have made up their minds that the 7NT bid was not >> illegal, the two situations are comparable since in neither case was >> there any illegal bid. >> >> Since I have argued that the 7NT bid may have been illegal, and am >> still waiting for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I am in the camp of >> people who do not think the situations comparable. >> > >David, you cannot mean to say that it is illegal to bid 7NT. >You must mean something else. >The only thing you can be saying is that you do not consider >the card of 7NT that is put on the table as a "bid". >Rather, you equate this with the player stating "I do not >want to play this board, pease give me 60%". >I agree (since recently) that this question is not to be >answered positively. >Thus you can say : "no sir, that is not a call, please make >a more serious one." >But I don't believe you can say it is illegal to ban 7NT as >such. > >Now of course you have a problem. The player is looking at >a 9-count, and he's mad at you for not allowing him to go >for A+. So he opens 1Sp and you have to apply L15C and you >give him A+. What are you planning to do, you who seems to >think the player ought not to act in this manner? Please if >you believe you can rule in this case, adapt it and give him >10HCP or even 11. > I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 in 32) for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I psyche. You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I psyched". David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do anything but give me an A+. It just cannot be legal to anything but give me A+, because otherwise you have banned me from psyching on this board, and that, sweetness, is interference up with which I shall not put. >I agree that the laws at present do not allow that a player >can opt for a AAS, but what can we do to stop him ? > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 23 23:27:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NDPmq19162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:25:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6NDPft19126 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.12a.1d2da8c (2615); Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:22:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:22:21 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A To: john@asimere.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/23/01 8:48:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john@asimere.com writes: > I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 in 32) > for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I psyche. > You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I psyched". > David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do anything > but give me an A+. It just cannot be legal to anything but give me A+, > because otherwise you have banned me from psyching on this board, and > that, sweetness, is interference up with which I shall not put. > > Beautifully written, erudite, cogent, etc., BUT entirely inappropriate to the case at hand! It is not a question of a psyche that is here being discussed (using your parsing structure), it is whether or not the 7NT bid is an attempt to purposefully prevent the application of a Law which covers the irregularity by taking a non-bridge action. I seriously doubt that you would allow a participant in your games whose SOLE purpose for paying an entry and making calls was to disrupt the game. Where the posting situation falls on the scale of inappropriateness us of course open to opinion. Kojak --part1_12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/23/01 8:48:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, john@asimere.com
writes:


I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 in 32)
for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I psyche.
You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I psyched".
David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do anything
but give me an A+.  It just cannot be legal to anything but give me A+,
because otherwise you have banned me from psyching on this board, and
that, sweetness, is interference up with which I shall not put.



Beautifully written, erudite, cogent, etc., BUT entirely inappropriate to the
case at hand!  It is not a question of a psyche that is here being discussed
(using your parsing structure), it is whether or not the 7NT bid is an
attempt to purposefully prevent the application of a Law which covers the
irregularity by taking a non-bridge action.  I seriously doubt that you would
allow a participant in your games whose SOLE purpose for paying an entry and
making calls was to disrupt the game.  Where the posting situation falls on
the scale of inappropriateness us of course open to opinion.
Kojak --part1_12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 00:40:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NEcww20335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:38:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6NEcpt20331 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:38:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6NEaBw00690 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:36:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:36 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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: John P wrote: > I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 in 32) > for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I psyche. > You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I psyched". > David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do anything > but give me an A+. I, and I suspect David, will wish to investigate further. Perhaps you are guilty of frivolous psyching. If I am happy with your explanation (I almost certainly will be) I give you your A+ - if not I will award whatever the normal penalty is for frivolous psyching. Either way my ruling will be judgement issue and you will probably get little joy from the L&E. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 02:09:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NG6nm20571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6NG6ft20564 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:06:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-80-233.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.80.233]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6NG3p906839 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:03:51 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <001001c11391$23bc1940$e950063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 16:59:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Jesper Dybdal ; Sent: 23 July 2001 08:00 Subject: Re: [BLML] What is the meaning of equity in L84D and L12C3? > > > With the reference corrected: > > I think L12C3 is terrible in itself if not > > supplemented by guidelines or regulations > > about how to use it. On the other hand, > > with such guidelines L12C3 can be very > > valuable. > > > > I would personally prefer that L12C3 itself > > said that its intended use is for assigning > > weighted averages of possible outcomes of > > the hand. Without that, you really do need > > guidelines before using L12C3. > > > +=+ To repeat what I have several times said, > 12C3 (in fact the antecedent footnote) was > introduced because the European Bridge League > resisted the change represented by 12C2 unless > latitude was allowed for the EBL to continue its > practice under the previous law of assigning a > single adjusted table score which it considered > a fair adjustment of a table result following an > irregularity. Having obtained that goal there > was no attempt to refine the law, and indeed > the sophisticated concept of a weighted score > was unknown at the time. EBL committees > continued to enter scores which they considered > to be meet and the EBL had no reason to take > the question further. > What should be noted is that the law as > published by the WBF says 'to do equity'. This > is to say that it allows the AC to extend what > it believes to be fair treatment to the two sides > when it considers 12C2 does not provide a fair > balance between them. To quote the EBL > Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge (1992): "This (12C3) is an absolute > mandate for the Appeals Committee to vary > a 12C2 adjustment in such a way as it considers > to give the best available equity on the hand." > It does indeed make the AC the final arbiter in > the matter of equity and does not intend to bind > the hands of the committee in its judgement of > the nearest to equity that is to be had. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 02:09:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NG6lI20570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:06:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6NG6dt20562 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:06:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-80-233.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.80.233]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.10.2/8.9.3) with SMTP id f6NG3m906824; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:03:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <000f01c11391$2264c6a0$e950063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:05:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: 21 July 2001 15:49 Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > As for the 7NT bid... West could have achieved > the same effect much more subtly Ю la Larry Cohen > in Lille. If you jump with righteous indignation on > 7NT all you are penalising is honesty. If you are of > this mind are you going to be equally rigorous with > a slightly off-centre bid or a suspect pass? > > In many cases of "rule exploitation" (but not here) > much of the authorities' indignation stems from their > failure, when drawing up competition regulations, to > envisage relatively straightforward loopholes. > +=+ Or the reactions of later generations in instances where the original legislators had attention drawn to a looseness of the law, but took the view "oh, we do not need to cater for that - it will not happen, and if it does, well, the law covers it". ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 03:43:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NHfAx20823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 03:41:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6NHf4t20819 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 03:41:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.133]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6NHcMn07873 for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:38:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B5BFF15.E1AFB294@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:40:21 +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] Opting for an AAS....? References: <3e.e67555d.28835045@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal writes > > >It has been pointed out that a call from one player rarely carries exactly the > >same meaning as the same call from another player and that pauses and > >mannerisms also occur. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to change > >the law to explicitly give the non-offending players the chance to choose not > >to play the board (or even to prescribe A+/A- always). > > I dislike A+/A-. People are here to play bridge, and in a small and > friendly club they do not want averages. Similar to the position when > they have seen a card from another hand: I usually allow it to be played > in a club or minor event. > > When we make Laws we must remember the players in Cheltenham as well > as in the EBL Championships in Tenerife: we must remember the Methodist > churches in New England as well as the NABC in Toronto. > I completely agree. So there really are only two possible solutions : - either you allow the players to choose; - or you prescribe the board to be played out by the original starters. either solution works. The current legal position is not really a good one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 04:50:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NImvs20958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 04:48:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6NImpt20954 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 04:48:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-43.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.43]) by amersham.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 121B51741A for ; Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:46:01 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:41:12 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <+I5+jVAgE2W7EwCi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson (Mon 23 Jul 2001 00:26) writes: >>Brambledown writes >>L15C is a well-intentioned attempt by the law-makers to play the >>board if at all possible. >>It is abundantly clear, however, from the many examples in >>this thread that this procedure is unsafe. At club level the TD, who is >>normally also playing, does not have time to consider possible UI from the >>differences between two apparently identical auctions. IMO it would be >>better if L15C were scrapped and the board scored Av?/Av+ for the correct >>pairing. The errant EW should be sent to their correct destination - >>conceding Av+/Av- if they are subsequently required to play this board. > You must remember that this method of proceeding is against what 90% >of club players want: they did not pay their money to get averages. This is not my experience. I have never had anyone complain or appear unhappy at losing a board as long as they are receiving an Av+. >>As for the 7NT bid... West could have achieved the same effect much more >>subtly Ю la Larry Cohen in Lille. If you jump with righteous indignation >>on 7NT all you are penalising is honesty. >>If you are of this mind are you going to be equally rigorous >>with a slightly off-centre bid or a suspect pass? > We were discussing what the Law said and meant. Once we have decided >what it means [and I think jump with righteous indignation is a fairly >poor way of describing the procedure of reading the Law book and >applying it to a situation] then there are no doubt problems of deciding >when it applies. It is much easier to consider the clear situations >[like with a 7NT bid] to decide what the Law is, and then decide how to >implement it in doubtful cases. This is fine in theory. However, a glance through this string reveals that for many the 7NT bid is highly emotive. Most would, I suspect, have accepted an off-centre bid (and given the Av+) without any problem. OTOH, 7NT is "not bridge" and this bid, like a red rag to a bull, has them scouring the Law book with a determination to penalise. I do not think "jumping on 7NT with righteous indignation" overstates this attitude. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 05:19:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6NJHpf21028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:17:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6NJHkt21024 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 05:17:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id 5.84.191eb940 (4327); Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:15:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <84.191eb940.288dd1b7@aol.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:15:03 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_84.191eb940.288dd1b7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_84.191eb940.288dd1b7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/23/01 1:41:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > So there really are only two possible solutions : > > If there is anything that makes me look at Herman's postings, it is that I can always be sure to find the complete answer to a problem. There are a finite number more than Herman's two solutions, but why quibble over such a minor point. Yet knowing Herman's conclusions has some value........I think. Kojak --part1_84.191eb940.288dd1b7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/23/01 1:41:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:


So there really are only two possible solutions :



If there is anything that makes me look at Herman's postings, it is that I
can always be sure to find the complete answer to a problem.  There are a
finite number more than Herman's two solutions, but why quibble over such a
minor point. Yet knowing Herman's conclusions has some value........I think.

Kojak --part1_84.191eb940.288dd1b7_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 10:21:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6O0JZD07432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:19:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6O0JSt07404 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:19:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15OpsR-000JDu-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 01:16:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:50:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Correction References: <000701c11346$1a3369a0$7d3a7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000701c11346$1a3369a0$7d3a7bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott"Hear my words carefully. Some are >spoken not by me, but by a man in my >position." [Norman McCaig] I think what Norman McCaig is saying in effect is that if Grattan wrote 12C2 when he meant 12C3 it wasn't really Grattan but someone else using his computer. > +=+ In my last message '(12C3)' not ('12C2').+=+ -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 10:47:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6O0jhU10320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:45:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6O0jbt10316 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:45:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id AAA10541 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:42:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 01:41:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d@aol.com> 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 <12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes > In a message dated 7/23/01 8:48:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > john@asimere.com > writes: > > >> I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 >> in 32) >> for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I >> psyche. >> You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I >> psyched". >> David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do >> anything >> but give me an A+. ═It just cannot be legal to anything but give >> me A+, >> because otherwise you have banned me from psyching on this >> board, and >> that, sweetness, is interference up with which I shall not put. > > > > Beautifully written, erudite, cogent, etc., BUT entirely > inappropriate to the > case at hand! ═It is not a question of a psyche that is here being > discussed > (using your parsing structure), it is whether or not the 7NT bid is > an > attempt to purposefully prevent the application of a Law which > covers the > irregularity by taking a non-bridge action. ═I seriously doubt that > you would > allow a participant in your games whose SOLE purpose for paying an > entry and > making calls was to disrupt the game. ═Where the posting situation > falls on > the scale of inappropriateness us of course open to opinion. > Kojak But when it comes to the crunch, what's the difference between 7NT and 2NT? I know that either call will not be the call that was previously made. There is nothing in the Law which suggests to me that 2NT is less or more worthy of unjustifiable righteous indignation than is 7NT. "But I *always* open 7NT on KJ643 Q43 A7 J76, and it's the *first* time it's *ever* come up." In either case the player has said (by his action) I do not want to play this board, give me my 60%. I think in both cases I might utter a gentle caution with regard to excess frivolity, but to go further is completely beyond the Law. The Law is in itself sensible if you have a club where everyone plays Walpurgis Diamond, because the same auction, with the same meanings will likely take place, but to suggest that Eric Leong and I, or Herman and Carl would take the same view on a hand is bordering on the ridiculous. -- 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 Jul 24 10:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6O0mOs10335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:48:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6O0mHt10331 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:48:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id AAA10570 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:45:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 01:43:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >John P wrote: > >> I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 in 32) >> for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I psyche. >> You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I psyched". >> David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do anything >> but give me an A+. > >I, and I suspect David, will wish to investigate further. Perhaps you are >guilty of frivolous psyching. If I am happy with your explanation (I >almost certainly will be) I give you your A+ - if not I will award >whatever the normal penalty is for frivolous psyching. Either way my >ruling will be judgement issue and you will probably get little joy from >the L&E. > "I couldn't possibly reveal to you the means by which I compute my parity bits. Not even my partner knows how I do it". 2NT, 7NT or just an offshape 1NT are all the same in the eye of the Law, and in each case I will know the board will be cancelled. >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 20:28:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OAQOV01821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:26:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OAQDt01817 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:26:14 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 1D7F22A51A1; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:03:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 98DDA2A672D for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:50:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 31072 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2001 09:50:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 24 Jul 2001 09:50:44 -0000 Message-ID: <3B5D45C3.6030900@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:54:11 +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 Discussion List Subject: [BLML] Could have known? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Footer: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, I found this little piece in Krzysztof Jassem's daily report from Life Master Pairs in Toronto. Day 2: Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. Tuszynski Jassem W N E S pass pass 3C ...pass pass pass 975 Q964 KQJ1083 --- QJ1032 864 AJ72 8 952 A74 2 AK8763 AK K1053 6 QJ10954 It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he would have certainly re-opened with 3D. Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. Do we apply "could have known" here? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 21:14:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OBCFX01932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:12:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6OBC9t01928 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:12:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.58]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6OB9Qn25039 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:09:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B5C6577.49F8802F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 19:57:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <12a.1d2da8c.288d7f0d@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: Beautifully written, erudite, cogent, etc., BUT entirely inappropriate to the case at hand! It is not a question of a psyche that is here being discussed (using your parsing structure), it is whether or not the 7NT bid is an attempt to purposefully prevent the application of a Law which covers the irregularity by taking a non-bridge action. I seriously doubt that you would allow a participant in your games whose SOLE purpose for paying an entry and making calls was to disrupt the game. Where the posting situation falls on the scale of inappropriateness us of course open to opinion. Kojak You are right, Kojak (what else), but I believe you have misinterpreted John's point. Of course bidding 7NT is a clear-cut attempt to render the board unplayable. But a player, knowing that 7NT will not be allowed, might attempt to render the board unplayable anyway, by opening something less obvious. How can you stop him ? And why should you ? Now I do accept that the WBF had the intention, in the 1997 Laws, to remove the option for the player to choose not to play, but they did so in an incomplete manner. First of all, they did not write a law stating what would happen if the player bids 7NT, and secondly they tried something that I believe to be impossible. Which is why I urge the WBF to change this back again, or go one step further and let play be finished by the wrong players. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 22:22:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OCKih08675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:20:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f6OCKTt08604 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:20:31 +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 15P18C-000PjS-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:17:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:15:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@127.0.0.1> <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> There are some people who consider that the player may have acted >> illegally by bidding 7NT. In Alain's example, no-one did anything that >> could be illegal. Thus they are not comparable. >I shall not comment on Alain's example. > >IMO, there is nothing illegal about the 7NT bid, as such. >> For people that have made up their minds that the 7NT bid was not >> illegal, the two situations are comparable since in neither case was >> there any illegal bid. >> >> Since I have argued that the 7NT bid may have been illegal, and am >> still waiting for someone to tell me why I am wrong, I am in the camp of >> people who do not think the situations comparable. >David, you cannot mean to say that it is illegal to bid 7NT. >You must mean something else. Thankyou. I did not realise I meant something else. Let me just check my memory banks. Aha - here it is: It is possible that bidding 7NT is against one of the Laws of bridge. Funny - I thought that made it illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 22:22:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OCKkD08691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:20:47 +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 f6OCKVt08618 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:20:32 +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 15P18D-0008ck-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:17:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:16:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <+I5+jVAgE2W7EwCi@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 Brambledown writes >>David Stevenson (Mon 23 Jul 2001 00:26) writes: >This is fine in theory. However, a glance through this string reveals that >for many the 7NT bid is highly emotive. Most would, I suspect, have >accepted an off-centre bid (and given the Av+) without any problem. OTOH, >7NT is "not bridge" and this bid, like a red rag to a bull, has them >scouring the Law book with a determination to penalise. >I do not think "jumping on 7NT with righteous indignation" overstates this >attitude. Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. I believe the 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by the Laws of bridge. But this is not an emotional response. I also believe it is illegal to lead out of turn. Same argument: it is not permitted by the Laws. So, you are obviously responding to other people, and there is no need to disagree with you. Pity though: I am still trying to find someone who will explain what is wrong with my argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 22:22:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OCKkW08685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:20:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f6OCKVt08617 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 22:20:32 +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 15P18D-0008ci-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 12:17:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:15:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A References: <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <3.0.6.32.20010711140108.00827ab0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001a01c10e7a$af019500$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717151719.00aefa60@127.0.0.1> <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <3B556AB6.7B6E81D7@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes >>Now of course you have a problem. The player is looking at >>a 9-count, and he's mad at you for not allowing him to go >>for A+. So he opens 1Sp and you have to apply L15C and you >>give him A+. What are you planning to do, you who seems to >>think the player ought not to act in this manner? Please if >>you believe you can rule in this case, adapt it and give him >>10HCP or even 11. >I, of course, have an algorithm based on about 5 parity bits (1 in 32) >for producing a psyche. This board meets the requirement. I psyche. >You ask me "why did you open 2NT on a flat 4-count." I say "I psyched". >David, sunshine, I'll have you in front of the L&E if you do anything >but give me an A+. It just cannot be legal to anything but give me A+, >because otherwise you have banned me from psyching on this board, and >that, sweetness, is interference up with which I shall not put. If you are telling me that when Herman re-writes my words to say something completely different from what I said that you are going to hold *me* responsible for what Herman said, then sunshine, you are digging a hole for yourself. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 24 23:23:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ODLkC18265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:21:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guhkip05.gasunie.nl (gasunie.nl [193.78.177.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ODLct18261 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:21:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from guhkip02.gasunie.nl (unverified) by guhkip05.gasunie.nl (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:16:58 +0200 Received: by etv with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:18:23 +0200 Message-ID: <61BAB88372D3D111B33F0000F6B081D1040BB5F1@GUHKIP03> From: "Pieters H.W." To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:18:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I find it hard to believe that the 7NT bid is illegal. It is possible, albeit very improbable that the original East made just that bid in an attempt to make the board unplayable (after finding themselves at the wrong table). I agree, it's not cricket, but IMO not an illegal bid. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] Verzonden: dinsdag 24 juli 2001 14:16 Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Brambledown writes >>David Stevenson (Mon 23 Jul 2001 00:26) writes: >This is fine in theory. However, a glance through this string reveals that >for many the 7NT bid is highly emotive. Most would, I suspect, have >accepted an off-centre bid (and given the Av+) without any problem. OTOH, >7NT is "not bridge" and this bid, like a red rag to a bull, has them >scouring the Law book with a determination to penalise. >I do not think "jumping on 7NT with righteous indignation" overstates this >attitude. Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. I believe the 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by the Laws of bridge. But this is not an emotional response. I also believe it is illegal to lead out of turn. Same argument: it is not permitted by the Laws. So, you are obviously responding to other people, and there is no need to disagree with you. Pity though: I am still trying to find someone who will explain what is wrong with my argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ****************************************************************************************** This communication is intended only for use by the addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information. If you receive this communication unintentionally, please let us know by reply immediately. Gasunie does not guarantee that the information sent with this E-mail is correct and does not accept any liability for damages related thereto. ****************************************************************************************** -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 00:50:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OEm0T20610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:48:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca ([132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OElrt20575 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:47:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6OEj9s00839 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:45:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107241445.f6OEj9s00839@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:45:09 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jul 24, 2001 01:16:08 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: > > Brambledown writes > >>David Stevenson (Mon 23 Jul 2001 00:26) writes: > > >This is fine in theory. However, a glance through this string reveals that > >for many the 7NT bid is highly emotive. Most would, I suspect, have > >accepted an off-centre bid (and given the Av+) without any problem. OTOH, > >7NT is "not bridge" and this bid, like a red rag to a bull, has them > >scouring the Law book with a determination to penalise. > >I do not think "jumping on 7NT with righteous indignation" overstates this > >attitude. > > Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. I believe the > 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by the Laws of bridge. But your sole argument is based on 74A2 and I just don't see how it can stretch to accomodate this. It's never frivolous to take an action that guarantees a 60% score, even if your sole motivation is actually to finish the round early and dash off for a smoke. No matter what your motivation you will have taken an action that is consistent with attempting to win the board. But what I find particularly worrisome is that this approach will encourage other directors to use 74A2 to rule against actions that they don't approve of. Mike Lawrence's 3C opener on a 4 card suit for instance (see his play with me matchpoints book) -- 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 Wed Jul 25 00:50:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OEmmt20884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:48:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OEmgt20848 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:48:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-134.brown-sailfin-tang.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.243.134] helo=default) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15P3Rg-0003P9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:46:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c1144f$b9b05ec0$6f07893e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: References: <61BAB88372D3D111B33F0000F6B081D1040BB5F1@GUHKIP03> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 15:48:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think you should be using its not polo, or not bowls perhaps, with the state of cricket these days. lnb ----- Original Message ----- From: Pieters H.W. > I find it hard to believe that the 7NT bid is illegal. It is possible, > albeit very improbable that the original East made just that bid in an > attempt to make the board unplayable (after finding themselves at the wrong > table). I agree, it's not cricket, but IMO not an illegal bid. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 01:21:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OFJa100541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:19:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.bmc.uu.se (hermes.bmc.uu.se [130.238.39.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OFJUt00537 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from terveen (terveen.ytbioteknik.uu.se [130.238.44.17]) by hermes.bmc.uu.se (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-62649U1500L1000S0V35) with SMTP id se; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:18:15 +0200 Message-ID: <004301c11453$e6159620$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Pieters H.W." , "BLML" References: <61BAB88372D3D111B33F0000F6B081D1040BB5F1@GUHKIP03> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:18:31 +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 f6OFJWt00538 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Pieters H.W. To: Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > I find it hard to believe that the 7NT bid is illegal. It is possible, > albeit very improbable that the original East made just that bid in an > attempt to make the board unplayable (after finding themselves at the wrong > table). I agree, it's not cricket, but IMO not an illegal bid. > IMHO, what's not cricket is not bridge either. Even if 7NT is not illegal (that is there is no law forbidding it) a TD should strive to let the players play bridge and talk to the 7NT bidder. It's not illegal to walk around with an open fly either, but it's normal to tell the person (in a nice way) that he is looking silly. That's what a TD is for. Greetings, Rik -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 01:39:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OFbfW00578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:37:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OFbYt00574 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:37:35 +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 IAA23688; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:34:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200107241534.IAA23688@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jul 2001 11:54:11 +0200." <3B5D45C3.6030900@interia.pl> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 08:34:45 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: > Hi all, > > I found this little piece in Krzysztof Jassem's daily > report from Life Master Pairs in Toronto. > > Day 2: > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. > > Tuszynski Jassem > W N E S > pass pass 3C ...pass > pass pass > > > 975 > Q964 > KQJ1083 > --- > QJ1032 864 > AJ72 8 > 952 A74 > 2 AK8763 > AK > K1053 > 6 > QJ10954 > > > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he > would have certainly re-opened with 3D. > > Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. > I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. > Do we apply "could have known" here? I'm not sure if you can. The places where "could have known" is referred to in the Laws are L23 (when an infraction forces partner to pass), L72B1 (which applies to any irregularity), and L73F2 (when opponents draw false inferences). I don't think a hesitation is an irregularity, so technically L72B1 doesn't apply. I don't think L23 applies either---even though the Laws more or less require North to pass after this action, the enforced pass is not a penalty for an irregularity. In any case, at this vulnerability in particular, I don't think South "could have known" that silencing partner would work. Perhaps South was hesitating because he was trying to figure out if it was worthwhile to try for 4H. (In fact, 4H looks awfully close to making.) -- 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 Jul 25 02:26:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OGOq600690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:24:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OGOkt00686 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:24:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-74-133.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.74.133] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15P4va-0009vK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:20:58 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c1145c$d3dff0a0$854a7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <+I5+jVAgE2W7EwCi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:19:46 +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: Sent: 24 July 2001 13:16 Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. > I believe the 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by > the Laws of bridge. > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the cancellation under Law 15C. But I do not see any discussion of motives in 15C, cancellation being based solely upon fact whether the auction differs or not. Lots of us think the action is undesirable, but this does not make it per se illegal. The fact that we do not like what the player does is not relevant. He has freedom to proceed with the auction as he thinks fit until we change the law, if we change the law - but have you thought what kind of law it would be possible to introduce that sought to control a player's motivation in choosing a call? When we start to do that we run up against the principle some hold dear that is basic to Law 40A etc., and we might hook some very curious fish. ~ 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 Jul 25 05:16:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OJEA902649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:14:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OJE2t02640 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:14:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-192.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.192]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id AFF4836EF1; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:11:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000601c11473$827fe960$c0b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:04:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David St: >> Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. >> I believe the 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by >> the Laws of bridge. >> > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument >that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the >cancellation under Law 15C. But I do not see any >discussion of motives in 15C, cancellation being based >solely upon fact whether the auction differs or not. After some days of serious bridge talk back in line and following it again I started looking for the dates, suspicious that a virus might have reproduced the messages I already received weeks ago. Ok new question: where in law 15 we use the word 'solely' ? Shouldn't the laws be considered to be a consistent group of rules describing how bridge needs to be played? And if so isn't it possible that other laws are in one way or another dealing with this irregularity as well? I don't have any doubt that the answer on this question is 'yes'. As long as you deny this, it is impossible to find a compromise. Lots of >us think the action is undesirable, but this does not make >it per se illegal. The use of the word 'illegal' here has the disadvantage that it distracts our attention from the real issue. The following happens: team event and during the bidding of board 3 you are called at the table where North tells you that West on each board has bid 7NT in his first call and that he refuses to continue play like this. Suppose 'you' is 'you Grattan'. So you start reading law 18, emphasizing that 7NT doubtlessly is a sufficient bid and therewith legal and you warn this North player that it is very unpolite to suggest to quit this game. Case solved. But I am very happy that there will be an AC of which you are not a member, since you were the TD. The fact that we do not like what the player >does is not relevant. It isn't? He has freedom to proceed with the >auction as he thinks fit until we change the law, if we >change the law We, members of the WBFLC agreed to announce explicitly once in a while that our opinion is a personal one in this group. This might be a good moment for you to do so. As it is my personal opinion that a player bidding 7NT in the L15 case is obstructing the game and therefore liable to a penalty. - but have you thought what kind of law it >would be possible to introduce that sought to control a >player's motivation in choosing a call? Not difficult at all, even now the instruction by the TD to continue normally takes care for it. Mind you, I never said that I like L15, I don't. But that is not the subject here. Still I tell you when I liked it very much. In a big pairs event there should have been a skip. But asking about the round we were playing I got the wrong answer. Just 20 seconds later we discovered the mistake and the skip was made. I explained law 15 and we continued. In stead of 40 artificial scores we had only 3 and no 7NT bids. When we start to >do that we run up against the principle some hold dear >that is basic to Law 40A etc., and we might hook some >very curious fish. I am not worried, we still hook them ton ~ 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 Jul 25 05:43:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OJfXS03741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:41:33 +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-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 f6OJfRt03733 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:41:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15P80x-0009ZF-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:38:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:07:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <61BAB88372D3D111B33F0000F6B081D1040BB5F1@GUHKIP03> <004301c11453$e6159620$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <004301c11453$e6159620$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik Terveen writes >Even if 7NT is not illegal (that is there is no law forbidding it) a TD should >strive to let the players play bridge and talk to the 7NT bidder. >It's not illegal to walk around with an open fly either, but it's normal to tell >the person (in a nice way) that he is looking silly. That's what a TD is for. Perhaps that is where we differ. In my view walking around with an open fly is a clear breach of L74A2. I find strange people who want to stop this player bidding 7NT but saying it is not illegal. If it is not illegal then it is legal and the TDs should not be trying to stop it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 05:43:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OJfeQ03751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:41:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OJfXt03742 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15P815-0009Zd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:38:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:02:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <200107241445.f6OEj9s00839@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200107241445.f6OEj9s00839@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes >David Stevenson writes: >> Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. I believe the >> 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by the Laws of bridge. >But your sole argument is based on 74A2 and I just don't see how >it can stretch to accomodate this. > >It's never frivolous to take an action that guarantees a 60% score, even >if your sole motivation is actually to finish the round early and dash off >for a smoke. No matter what your motivation you will have taken an action >that is consistent with attempting to win the board. Is that enough? You believe it acceptable to stop your opponents actually playing the board in a position where it could be played? I have already pointed out that if your action is taken to try to win the event then I do not see L74A2 as relevant. You think that if you have no interest in winning the event or letting your opponents play hte board it makes no difference? >But what I find particularly worrisome is that this approach will >encourage other directors to use 74A2 to rule against actions that >they don't approve of. If actions are done with the sole effect of upsetting opponents then in some cases L74A2 applies, certainly. >Mike Lawrence's 3C opener on a 4 card suit for instance (see his play >with me matchpoints book) Frivolous psyching is illegal: attempting to win, if necessary by psyching or by playing strange but legal methods is not illegal. I believe the distinction is clear: whether it applies to any specific situation is [as so often] a matter of judgement. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 06:09:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OK7PO04838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 06:07:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wsmail.icl.co.uk (cfmgw.iclnet.co.uk [194.176.223.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OK7Gt04829 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 06:07:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mailgate.icl.co.uk (mailgate [172.16.2.21]) by wsmail.icl.co.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA24290 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:02:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from vguard1.icl.co.uk (vguard1a.icl.co.uk [172.16.2.23]) by mailgate.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA07246 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:04:16 +0100 (BST) Received: FROM x400.icl.co.uk BY vguard1.icl.co.uk ; Tue Jul 24 21:00:49 2001 +0100 Received: from wwmessd045.man23.icl.local (wwmessd045.icl.com [172.19.5.38]) by x400.icl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id VAA05514 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:04:15 +0100 (BST) Received: by WWMESSD045 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:07:00 +0100 Message-ID: From: Romanski Jan To: "BLML (E-mail)" Subject: [BLML] Acquiescence, revoke and what now... Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 20:58:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following case divided us (directors of Baltic Congress in Sopot, Poland) into two, almost equall groups. Pairs, last board in the round, spade contract: K108x - - x x Qxx xx x x x x - AJ9xx - - - In the trick number nine declarer played ace of spades from hand. LHO failed to follow suit. Declarer said "OK, queen of spades for you, rest is mine". Opponents agreed, all put cards to the board and the result was recorded. There was no signal for following round, so they started to analyse and it shows that LHO has made a revoke. Is this the established revoke? What about the same case in the last board of the session? Jan Romanski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 07:28:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OLQZH08815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:26:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OLQQt08773 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6OLLmN10511 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:21:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <61BAB88372D3D111B33F0000F6B081D1040BB5F1@GUHKIP03> <004301c11453$e6159620$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:18:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In my view walking around with an >open fly is a clear breach of L74A2. Perhaps, if it's done deliberately. 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/AwUBO13nUr2UW3au93vOEQLS0QCgsFhetKGb9CizfSWUPSPXB/I7/J8AoPLT UDyp7fkO/+WJWAWvHVS1uPKj =e6tB -----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 Jul 25 07:50:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OLmtD16288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6OLmmt16249 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA32346; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:46:06 -0700 Message-Id: <200107242146.OAA32346@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:18:58 EDT." Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:46:04 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > >In my view walking around with an > >open fly is a clear breach of L74A2. > > Perhaps, if it's done deliberately. I don't think we need to judge whether it's done deliberately. In my reading of the Laws, all we need to determine is whether the offender "could have known" that walking around with one's fly open might cause annoyance or embarrassment of another player or might interfere with other players' enjoyment of the game. -- 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 Jul 25 08:27:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OMQ0720847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6OMPrt20839 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 08:25:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-62-218.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.62.218] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15PAZe-000Jdq-00; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c1148f$70f27020$da3e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" Cc: References: <000601c11473$827fe960$c0b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:20:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > >> > > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument > >that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the > >cancellation under Law 15C. But I do not see any > >discussion of motives in 15C, cancellation being based > >solely upon fact whether the auction differs or not. > . > > Ok new question: where in law 15 we use the word 'solely' ? > Shouldn't the laws be considered to be a consistent group > of rules describing how bridge needs to be played? And if so > isn't it possible that other laws are in one way or another > dealing with this irregularity as well? I don't have any doubt > that the answer on this question is 'yes'. As long as you > deny this, it is impossible to find a compromise. > +=+ Why should I deny it? No-one has persuaded me there is such a law that affects the issue, nor am I conscious of one. If one exists I would embrace it, but I do not embrace a theory that because we dislike an action it must be illegal; that is for the law to say. The word 'solely' was used by me to emphasise the incontrovertible fact that Law 15C states that if the auction differs the board is to be cancelled and this is the only basis for intervention that Law 15C presents. This is a factual reading of that Law, not an opinion. +=+ > > > Lots of > >us think the action is undesirable, but this does not make > >it per se illegal. > > The use of the word 'illegal' here has the disadvantage > that it distracts our attention from the real issue. > +=+ My opinion is that we should apply the law, allowing what is legal and disallowing what is not legal. For me this is the issue. +=+ > > The following happens: team event and during the > bidding of board 3 you are called at the table where > North tells you that West on each board has bid > 7NT in his first call and that he refuses to continue > play like this. Suppose 'you' is 'you Grattan'. So you > start reading law 18, emphasizing that 7NT doubtlessly > is a sufficient bid and therewith legal and you warn > this North player that it is very impolite to suggest to > quit this game. > +=+ I do nothing of the sort. I examine whether 7NT is a psychic by definition in each instance and, if so, handle it as repetitious psyching. What then happens depends largely on what regulations apply. +=+ > > Case solved. But I am very happy that there will be > an AC of which you are not a member, since you > were the TD. > +=+ That sounds angry and a little unworthy, but let > it pass.+=+ > > The fact that we do not like what the player > >does is not relevant. > > It isn't? > +=+ Not if the laws allow it. There are lots of players who resent psychics, for example, but must bear with them to the extent that the laws allow of them.+=+ > > He has freedom to proceed with the > >auction as he thinks fit until we change the law, if we > >change the law > > We, members of the WBFLC agreed to announce > explicitly once in a while that our opinion is a personal > one in this group. This might be a good moment for > you to do so. As it is my personal opinion that a player > bidding 7NT in the L15 case is obstructing the game > and therefore liable to a penalty. > +=+ If he has obstructed the game by committing an offence, to cite Law 90. I keep to the view expressed in the CoP that a penalty may only be exacted where there is a violation of the laws/regulations, and I have never heard it argued that 'offence' in Law 90 means anything other than a violation of the laws, or of regulations made under the laws. +=+ > > - but have you thought what kind of law it > >would be possible to introduce that sought > >to control a player's motivation in choosing a call? > > Not difficult at all, even now the instruction by the > TD to continue normally takes care for it. > +=+ Play only 'continues normally' after no call has been found to differ. The earlier instruction is that 'another auction begins', and (still in my opinion of course) that means any legal auction within the terms of Laws 17 through 40. I believe that a desire to punish the player's action is blinding you to the law book. I, too, would wish the Director to be in a position to take action, but only in conformance with prescribed law or regulation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 09:10:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ON85p22251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:08:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ON7wt22247 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:07:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout4.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6ON34N29840 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200107242146.OAA32346@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200107242146.OAA32346@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:03:15 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In my reading of the Laws, all we need to determine is whether the offender >"could have known" that walking around with one's fly open might cause >annoyance or embarrassment of another player or might interfere with >other players' enjoyment of the game. I was thinking that it seems a bit much to penalize somebody for walking around unaware that his fly is open. 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/AwUBO13/Hb2UW3au93vOEQK7qgCeLiEC+dat5Piky1BcsWpWqDP431sAoMat S4g4fybCq0tVe0jxES1gJdWw =b+Tw -----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 Jul 25 09:30:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ONSiw23891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:28:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6ONSat23851 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:28:36 +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 TAA03236 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA06243 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:25:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107242325.TAA06243@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > From: Adam Beneschan > The places where "could have known" is > referred to in the Laws are L23 (when an infraction forces partner to > pass), L72B1 (which applies to any irregularity), and L73F2 (when > opponents draw false inferences). I don't think a hesitation is an > irregularity, so technically L72B1 doesn't apply. Perhaps you might have another look at L73D1. It refers to tempo variations that might benefit one's own side. That most often means variations that could mislead an opponent, but I don't see anything that limits it to that situation. Forcing partner to pass by creating a L16A situation could in some cases be a benefit, too. While L73D1 doesn't declare such tempo variations to be infractions, it does seem strong enough to make them irregularities for purposes of L72B1. If you _don't_ agree with the above (or with something quite similar), we are back in the bad old days where we couldn't adjust a score without accusing a player of a deliberate infraction. Actually, in this case, I'm not sure you couldn't rule that there has been a violation of L73D1 ("failing to be sufficiently careful") and go directly to 12A1, bypassing "could have known." I'm not saying I _would_ rule that way, but I certainly would want to ask South what in the world he was thinking about for so long. > In any case, at this vulnerability in particular, I don't think South > "could have known" that silencing partner would work. This is, of course, a matter of bridge judgment on which reasonable people can disagree. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 09:34:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6ONXTj25631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:33:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falhost.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6ONXNt25595 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:33:23 +1000 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA13584; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:30:38 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma013185; Wed, 25 Jul 01 09:30:07 +1000 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f6ONU7B02074 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f6ONU7102068 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:30:07 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA29892; Wed, 25 Jul 01 09:15:11 EST Message-Id: <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717154014.00af8950@127.0.0.1> <002301c10f49$71596dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:30:09 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, A recent article in Australian Bridge (July 2001, p12 for those who have it) written by a player in the recently held PABF wrote: "There was some academic interest on Board 5. Chadwick did not see Clark's redouble of her 2D bid (for rescue) and passed. She called the director in order to change her bid - under 'inadvertency' - but was informed she was not allowed to do so. She questioned this ruling, but was made to play 2D redoubled for -1000. At the end of the session the director returned, advising that her previous ruling was incorrect and the board would be scrubbed, with each side being given 3 imps on the board" It struck me that it isn't obvious that not seeing a bid would cause your call to become inadvertent. Is it generally accepted that it does? Cheers, Peter PS: For those who like interesting match scores - the final result was 13-19 - so much for those comments "We are locked in because that match can only produce 30 VPs!!" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 10:50:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P0mOX01988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:48:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P0mHt01979 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:48:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03891; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:45:35 -0700 Message-Id: <200107250045.RAA03891@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jul 2001 19:25:54 EDT." <200107242325.TAA06243@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:45:33 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > > > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > > > From: Adam Beneschan > > The places where "could have known" is > > referred to in the Laws are L23 (when an infraction forces partner to > > pass), L72B1 (which applies to any irregularity), and L73F2 (when > > opponents draw false inferences). I don't think a hesitation is an > > irregularity, so technically L72B1 doesn't apply. > > Perhaps you might have another look at L73D1. It refers to tempo > variations that might benefit one's own side. That most often means > variations that could mislead an opponent, but I don't see anything > that limits it to that situation. Forcing partner to pass by creating > a L16A situation could in some cases be a benefit, too. While L73D1 > doesn't declare such tempo variations to be infractions, it does seem > strong enough to make them irregularities for purposes of L72B1. > > If you _don't_ agree with the above (or with something quite similar), > we are back in the bad old days where we couldn't adjust a score without > accusing a player of a deliberate infraction. But if you *do* agree with the above, we get ourselves into a particularly obnoxious variety of the "If it hesitates, shoot it" philosophy. That is, if one player hesitates because he doesn't have a clear bid, and his partner scrupulously follows Law 16, and the lie of the cards is such that the ethically correct call works better than other alternatives might have, the opponents could ask for an adjustment based on L73D1. Really, isn't *any* point in the auction a "position in which variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side" (other than when the hesitator is thinking about where to place the final contract)? Thus, the logical consequence of this interpretation is essentially that when someone hesitates during the auction, his side is not allowed to get a good result. If given a choice between this consequence, and being unable to adjust IN THIS SITUATION unless we believe a player deliberately hesitated in order to silence partner, I'll take the latter, thank you. -- 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 Jul 25 11:37:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P1Xqc03336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:33:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg (thorium.singnet.com.sg [165.21.74.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P1Xit03328 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:33:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by thorium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:27:19 +0800 Received: from mx16.singnet.com.sg ([165.21.74.116]) by tellurium.mcis.singnet.com.sg with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:59:35 +0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by mx16.singnet.com.sg (8.11.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6OLubR19703 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 05:56:37 +0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6OLmtD16288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6OLmmt16249 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 07:48:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA32346; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:46:06 -0700 Message-Id: <200107242146.OAA32346@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:18:58 EDT." Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 14:46:04 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > >In my view walking around with an > >open fly is a clear breach of L74A2. > > Perhaps, if it's done deliberately. I don't think we need to judge whether it's done deliberately. In my reading of the Laws, all we need to determine is whether the offender "could have known" that walking around with one's fly open might cause annoyance or embarrassment of another player or might interfere with other players' enjoyment of the game. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 11:45:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P1gRv05876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:42:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P1gKt05846 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:42:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id s.a1.18a32dd7 (4540); Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:39:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:39:30 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: cyaxares@lineone.net, willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a1.18a32dd7.288f7d52_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_a1.18a32dd7.288f7d52_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a passing thought. Since in the WBF pairs Championships it is a historical given that the event is won by a 54 to 55 % game, what do you think of a player who purposely circumvents the Laws, knowing that his side has made a call, and causes an assignment of 60% to his side? Or was the call taken sufficiently "normal" in the caswe of the superstar so often cited, so that it might not cause a disaster if the previous holder of the cards had not taken any action and it had to live? Kojak --part1_a1.18a32dd7.288f7d52_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just a passing thought.  Since in the WBF pairs Championships it is a
historical given that the event is won by a 54 to 55 % game, what do you
think of a player who purposely circumvents the Laws, knowing that his side
has made a call, and causes an assignment of 60% to his side? Or was the call
taken sufficiently "normal" in the caswe of the superstar so often cited, so
that it might not cause a disaster if the previous holder of the cards had
not taken any action and it had to live?

Kojak --part1_a1.18a32dd7.288f7d52_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 11:57:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P1sCD10112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:54:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P1s4t10081 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id BAA13208; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 01:51:21 GMT Message-ID: <5e9ZrqBxUiX7EwLw@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:47:29 +0100 To: Grattan Endicott Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <+I5+jVAgE2W7EwCi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000201c1145c$d3dff0a0$854a7bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000201c1145c$d3dff0a0$854a7bd5@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000201c1145c$d3dff0a0$854a7bd5@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes snip >> >> Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. >> I believe the 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by >> the Laws of bridge. >> > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument >that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the >cancellation under Law 15C. But I do not see any >discussion of motives in 15C, cancellation being based >solely upon fact whether the auction differs or not. Lots of >us think the action is undesirable, but this does not make >it per se illegal. The fact that we do not like what the player >does is not relevant. He has freedom to proceed with the >auction as he thinks fit until we change the law, if we >change the law - but have you thought what kind of law it >would be possible to introduce that sought to control a >player's motivation in choosing a call? When we start to >do that we run up against the principle some hold dear >that is basic to Law 40A etc., and we might hook some >very curious fish. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, dear boy, I'm going to buy you a drink at Brighton (provided that is that you play in one of my midnight games). Much as I dislike the 7NT bid, I can't see a way to stop it. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 12:07:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P24CZ12254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:04:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P243t12207 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:04:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id CAA13234 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:01:27 GMT Message-ID: <0Opav3BgeiX7EwLA@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:57:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <000601c11473$827fe960$c0b5f1c3@kooijman> In-Reply-To: <000601c11473$827fe960$c0b5f1c3@kooijman> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000601c11473$827fe960$c0b5f1c3@kooijman>, ton kooijman writes snip > > >He has freedom to proceed with the >>auction as he thinks fit until we change the law, if we >>change the law > >We, members of the WBFLC agreed to announce explicitly once in a while that >our opinion is a personal one in this group. This might be a good moment for >you to do so. As it is my personal opinion that a player bidding 7NT in the >L15 case is obstructing the game and therefore liable to a penalty. > Ton, you are normally so sensible. You *don't* have a Law available to stop it. Of course you, Kojak, DWS and I don't like the 7NT bid, but why has the player made the call? He didn't want to play the board, he did want 60% and 7NT is an obvious way to achieve it. *Really*, *Ton* it's no different from opening an off-centre 1NT. Think about the implications of Law 40. "any call or play". Yeah, I hate the 7NT, you hate the 7NT, but it's *not* illegal. cheers john > >- but have you thought what kind of law it >>would be possible to introduce that sought to control a >>player's motivation in choosing a call? > >Not difficult at all, even now the instruction by the TD to continue >normally takes care for it. The TD *cannot* tell me *not* to psych > >Mind you, I never said that I like L15, I don't. But that is not the subject >here. Still I tell you when I liked it very much. In a big pairs event there >should have been a skip. But asking about the round we were playing I got >the wrong answer. Just 20 seconds later we discovered the mistake and the >skip was made. I explained law 15 and we continued. In stead of 40 >artificial scores we had only 3 and no 7NT bids. > > > >When we start to >>do that we run up against the principle some hold dear >>that is basic to Law 40A etc., and we might hook some >>very curious fish. you'll hook me 1 time in 32. and you are *wrong*. > >I am not worried, we still hook them > >ton > > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 12:26:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P2Ni819299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:23:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mailgate.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P2Nbt19260 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id CAA13261 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 02:21:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 03:17:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Schoderb@aol.com writes > Just a passing thought. ═Since in the WBF pairs Championships it is > a > historical given that the event is won by a 54 to 55 % game, what > do you > think of a player who purposely circumvents the Laws, knowing that > his side > has made a call, and causes an assignment of 60% to his side? Or > was the call > taken sufficiently "normal" in the caswe of the superstar so often > cited, so > that it might not cause a disaster if the previous holder of the > cards had > not taken any action and it had to live? > > Kojak Kojak, I hate it. I give him 60%. Change the damned Law :) -- 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 Jul 25 13:54:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P3qAH20945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:52:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6P3q3t20907 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:52:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaug82.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.2]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA30296 for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c114bc$c2514e00$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717154014.00af8950@127.0.0.1> <002301c10f49$71596dc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:49:08 -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: "Peter Newman" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > Hi All, > > A recent article in Australian Bridge (July 2001, p12 for those who have it) > written by a player in the recently held PABF wrote: > > "There was some academic interest on Board 5. Chadwick did not see Clark's > redouble of her 2D bid (for rescue) and passed. > She called the director in order to change her bid - under 'inadvertency' - > but was informed she was not allowed to do so. She questioned this ruling, > but was made to play 2D redoubled for -1000. > At the end of the session the director returned, advising that her previous > ruling was incorrect and the board would be scrubbed, with each side being > given 3 imps on the board" > > It struck me that it isn't obvious that not seeing a bid would cause your > call to become inadvertent. Is it generally accepted that it does? > > Cheers, > > Peter IMO the original ruling was correct. Her pass was intended, not inadvertent. A call is inadvertent when a player actually intended to make a different call, but makes a mechanical error, so that the call finally made is not the one intended. In the case above, the pass was indeed the call the player intended to make (however careless the process used to arrive at the intent), therefore it is not inadvertent. 25A protects against mechanical error, not lapses of attention. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 17:24:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P7MGi24426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:22:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6P7M8t24420 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:22:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.90]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6P7JNM19840 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:19:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B5D5C87.8C02C207@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:31:19 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <3B5D45C3.6030900@interia.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Hi all, > > I found this little piece in Krzysztof Jassem's daily > report from Life Master Pairs in Toronto. > > Day 2: > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. > > Tuszynski Jassem > W N E S > pass pass 3C ...pass > pass pass > It is worth noting that it is East-West writing the article. I would be far less suspicious if North-South had been writing it. > > 975 > Q964 > KQJ1083 > --- > QJ1032 864 > AJ72 8 > 952 A74 > 2 AK8763 > AK > K1053 > 6 > QJ10954 > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he > would have certainly re-opened with 3D. > So he admits that he has been using UI to determine what to bid. "certainly would have re-opened" - so there is no LA in his mind. By the minute of hesitation, South has made certain that North knows there is a real hesitation - not just a waiting for an alert. > Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. > I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. > Do we apply "could have known" here? > I would ask South what he was thinking about. Then I would rule against North-South. Amazing, this ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 17:28:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P7RMO24568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:27:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P7RFt24561 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:27:16 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA16579; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:24:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 25 09:23:06 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6CD01SKIQ0004J0@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:24:25 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:24:41 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:24:22 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid To: "'Peter Newman'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi All, > > A recent article in Australian Bridge (July 2001, p12 for > those who have it) > written by a player in the recently held PABF wrote: > > "There was some academic Why academic? The problem sounds real enough to consider it worth forming an opinion about, for very practical reasons! interest on Board 5. Chadwick did > not see Clark's > redouble of her 2D bid (for rescue) and passed. > She called the director in order to change her bid - under > 'inadvertency' - > but was informed she was not allowed to do so. That seems a rigt decision to me - this is not an inadvertent call - but it is not the end of the case. The TD should have explained the use of 25B offering to change the call with the average -minus score as a maximum. She questioned > this ruling, > but was made to play 2D redoubled for -1000. > At the end of the session the director returned, advising > that her previous > ruling was incorrect Which is true, but the suggestion that 25A should have been applied is wrong, as we saw above. and the board would be scrubbed, with > each side being > given 3 imps on the board" So this is the most interesting part of the question. If we only read L82C this seems to be the right approach. But given the fact that one pair couldn't get more than average-minus and knowing that a TD is allowed to use more than one law when solving an irregularity my decision would have been A+/A-. > > It struck me that it isn't obvious that not seeing a bid > would cause your > call to become inadvertent. Is it generally accepted that it does? Shouldn't the question have been how the laws want this to be treated? > Cheers, > > Peter > PS: For those who like interesting match scores - the final result was > 13-19 - so much for those comments "We are locked in because > that match can > only produce 30 VPs!!" And we subtract 2VP from the TD in such a case. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 17:54:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P7r8F25196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:53:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falhost.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6P7r2t25189 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:53:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id RAA21646; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:50:17 +1000 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma021399; Wed, 25 Jul 01 17:49:50 +1000 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f6P7nnY03729 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f6P7nnR03710 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:49:49 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA01743; Wed, 25 Jul 01 17:34:53 EST Message-Id: <007501c114de$619cdd50$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:49:49 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Ton, Thanks for your reply. > Why academic? The problem sounds real enough to consider it worth forming an > opinion about, for very practical reasons! I agree. I was only quoting from the article in the magazine. To me it was an interesting problem. In the magazine there in big font after the -1000 is written: (sorry I ommitted it in my original email) "Law 25 - Legal and Illegal changes of call" Until his partner makes a call, a player may --snip--, without pause for thought... Sounds like they were quoting L25A to me and the suggestion in the article is that L25A should have applied but that the director at the table got it wrong. It wouldn't cross my mind that this was an inadvertant call. I agree that L25B may well have applied (though I wish it wasn't a law in TFLB) and am interested in your Av+, Av- suggestion. Cheers, Peter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 18:32:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P8UXE26069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:30:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P8UOt26061 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:30:25 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA02716; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:27:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 25 10:26:13 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6CF69AIN40004LD@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:26:41 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:26:57 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:26:38 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , ton kooijman Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C3@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan Endicott "Be ye never so high, the law is > above you" [Thomas Fuller] This statement might be the explanation for some of our disputes. I don't know who Fuller was (is) but the legislators, lawyers and all those related to them (one billion people nowadays) will be happy. Laws are made to bring structure, civilisation, guarantees, go on .... in this world. Frozen agreements they are. But they are not above us. We should follow them, not obey them. And of course they should be clear, so that single persons reading them can apply them in the same way. But that is simply impossible and therefore we need interpretations, and then I am with Kaplan: The laws should be written in such a way that interpretations can be made for which the scope of the laws, clearly written, is leading our way. Not using words like 'solely' to be stuck to undesirable interpretations. > > >> > > > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument > > >that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the > > >cancellation under Law 15C. Yes indeed. Since it is clear that L 15 does its utmost to let the play be continued. But I do not see any > > >discussion of motives in 15C, cancellation being based > > >solely upon fact whether the auction differs or not. > > . > > > > Ok new question: where in law 15 we use the word 'solely' ? > > Shouldn't the laws be considered to be a consistent group > > of rules describing how bridge needs to be played? And if so > > isn't it possible that other laws are in one way or another > > dealing with this irregularity as well? I don't have any doubt > > that the answer on this question is 'yes'. As long as you > > deny this, it is impossible to find a compromise. > > > +=+ Why should I deny it? No-one has persuaded me there > is such a law that affects the issue, nor am I conscious of > one. As long as you add 'solely' to L 15 you will not find one ever. If one exists I would embrace it, but I do not embrace > a theory that because we dislike an action it must be illegal; Clear statement. I didn't read anywhere that 'disliking' leads to 'being illegal'. Knowing that 15C might lead to undesirable actions the TD instructs players to continue normally. If they refuse to do so, it the clear responsibility of the TD to take measures. (Did anybody mention 72B1?). And if in your opinion 15C doesn't allow to give 40% to the player bidding 7NT now, we give him 60% on the board and a penalty for not following the instruction of the TD, which is 50% of the board. I am not interested in the number of the law to be used to support the decision that a pair refusing to play bridge as the TD instructs them to do, has to be penalized. > that is for the law to say. > > The word 'solely' was used by me to emphasise the > incontrovertible fact that Law 15C states that if the > auction differs the board is to be cancelled and this > is the only basis for intervention that Law 15C presents. Indeed: '.... that L15 presents'. > This is a factual reading of that Law, not an opinion. +=+ > > > > > > Lots of > > >us think the action is undesirable, but this does not make > > >it per se illegal. > > > > The use of the word 'illegal' here has the disadvantage > > that it distracts our attention from the real issue. > > > +=+ My opinion is that we should apply the law, allowing > what is legal and disallowing what is not legal. For me > this is the issue. +=+ > > > > The following happens: team event and during the > > bidding of board 3 you are called at the table where > > North tells you that West on each board has bid > > 7NT in his first call and that he refuses to continue > > play like this. Suppose 'you' is 'you Grattan'. So you > > start reading law 18, emphasizing that 7NT doubtlessly > > is a sufficient bid and therewith legal and you warn > > this North player that it is very impolite to suggest to > > quit this game. > > > +=+ I do nothing of the sort. I examine whether 7NT is > a psychic by definition in each instance and, if so, handle > it as repetitious psyching. What then happens depends > largely on what regulations apply. +=+ That is a Grattan non-answer. Two more boards of 7NT and then NS really leaving the table. Now it is the TD who has made a mess of it, by reading the laws above him. > > > > Case solved. But I am very happy that there will be > > an AC of which you are not a member, since you > > were the TD. > > > +=+ That sounds angry and a little unworthy, but let > > it pass.+=+ It wasn't meant like that and your non-answer on this case supports my opinion. > > > > The fact that we do not like what the player > > >does is not relevant. > > > > It isn't? > > > +=+ Not if the laws allow it. But they don't, wasn't that my statement? > > > > - but have you thought what kind of law it > > >would be possible to introduce that sought > > >to control a player's motivation in choosing a call?+=+ > > > > Not difficult at all, even now the instruction by the > > TD to continue normally takes care for it. > > > +=+ Play only 'continues normally' after no call has been > found to differ. This TD wasn't referring to the last words of 15C but gave a general instruction. As when a playe makes an insufficient bid: 'you may accept this insufficient bid and then the auction continues normally.' I am not so sure what to do when this next (inexperienced) player now starts laughing and puts another insufficient bid on the table, showing his annoyance with the ruling the TD gave. You take your lawbook and starts offering the next player the possibility to accept this bid. The earlier instruction is that 'another > auction begins', and (still in my opinion of course) that > means any legal auction within the terms of Laws 17 > through 40. I believe that a desire to punish the > player's action is blinding you to the law book. I, too, > would wish the Director to be in a position to take > action, but only in conformance with prescribed law or > regulation. Then find them. ton ~ 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 Jul 25 18:34:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P8Wv226131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:32:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm ([217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P8Wnt26125 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:32:50 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id E5BEA2A4DF2; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:29:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with SMTP id 047C52A4DDD for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:29:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 9332 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2001 08:29:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO interia.pl) (62.32.168.211) by poczta.interia.pl with SMTP; 25 Jul 2001 08:29:57 -0000 X-Footer: Message-Id: <20010725082920.047C52A4DDD@nyx.poczta.fm> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:29:20 +0200 (CEST) From: cibor@interia.pl To: undisclosed-recipients: ; X-EMID: 69b57138 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ------------------------------------ Zagraj w I Lidze z wlasna druzyna... http://ruletka.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 Wed Jul 25 19:23:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P9M9T27289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:22:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P9M2t27285 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:22:03 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA00204; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:35:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 25 10:33:59 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6CFFXIZTC0004MG@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:34:29 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:34:45 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:34:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , ton kooijman Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott "Be ye never so high, the law is > above you" [Thomas Fuller] > > > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument > > >that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the > > >cancellation under Law 15C. But I do not see any > > >discussion of motives in 15C, cancellation being based > > >solely upon fact whether the auction differs or not. Going for a coffee I suddenly ralised that we might agree. Yes cancellation in 15C indeed is based upon fact whether the auction differs or not. So every TD will cancel the board after the 7NT bid, and he doesn't need another law for that. I don't remember anybody saying anything else. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 19:24:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P9Mwm27316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:22:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6P9Mmt27307 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:22:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-72.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.72]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6P9K5n21403 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:20:05 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B5E7C2B.98E884DA@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:58:35 +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] Opting for an AAS....? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well, Kojak, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > Just a passing thought. Since in the WBF pairs > Championships it is a > historical given that the event is won by a 54 to 55 % > game, what do you > think of a player who purposely circumvents the Laws, > knowing that his side > has made a call, and causes an assignment of 60% to his > side? Or was the call > taken sufficiently "normal" in the caswe of the superstar > so often cited, so > that it might not cause a disaster if the previous holder > of the cards had > not taken any action and it had to live? > > Kojak what do I think of it ? Some of you seem to think that it is illegal to render the board unplayable under L15C. I see no reason to believe that it is, other than that the WBFLC have changed the law in 1997, by omitting the option. At the same time, the WBFLC forgot to put a clear negative in there, and did not write in any penalties. So we are now stuck with a law that does not prohibit this, and I therefor believe that it is not illegal. Anyway, since the laws do not provide neither a penalty, nor a test to see whether or not the board was rendered unplayable on purpose, I do not see what we can do against a smart player who knows how to get 60%. IMO, the WBFLC knew all along what they were doing. They wanted to get rid of the easy option, and so they omitted that from the laws. But they realized they could not do away with the thing altogether, and they did not put into the law some unenforcable action. Thus, while no longer specifically having to state to the playes that they have the option to refuse, they still have that possibility. And by not telling them how far the original auction goes, we can assure that at least they try to play some form of sensible bridge. Mind you, the best solution, IMO, is still to let the original players finish the board that they started. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 19:59:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P9vPn28135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:57:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6P9vHt28128 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:57:17 +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 15PLN8-0005r1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:54:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:29:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have been asked which members of BLML will be at this course. I hope that many will attend that I do not know. The following I believe are attending: Course tutors and other staff: Ton Kooijman Olivier Beauvillain Bertrand Gignoux Rui Marques Maurizio Di Sacco David Stevenson Grattan Endicott Course members: Jesper Dybdal Sergei Litvak Sergey Kapustin Anne Jones [STC] So, who else is coming? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 19:59:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6P9vMV28133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:57:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6P9vDt28121 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:57:14 +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 15PLN8-0005pC-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:54:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 21:11:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <+I5+jVAgE2W7EwCi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000201c1145c$d3dff0a0$854a7bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000201c1145c$d3dff0a0$854a7bd5@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: David Stevenson >> Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. >> I believe the 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by >> the Laws of bridge. >> > +=+ As I understand it, your belief is based on argument >that it is illegal to make a bid with intention to force the >cancellation under Law 15C. That is not my argument, no. Someone else's, perhaps. My argument, explained at length, was that if a player bids 7NT to try to improve his standing in the event then it is legal. If he bids it because he has no interest in playing the board then it may be illegal under L74A2. It is exactly the same argument as the one about frivolous psyching. An ordinary psych, if not fielded, is legal. A pair who have lost interest in the event, and open 3NT for fun on every board, are spoiling it for their opponents, and their actions are illegal under L74A2. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 20:03:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PA26K28260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:02:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PA1xt28255 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:02:00 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA23753; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:59:17 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 25 11:57:52 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6CIESD0HA0004PZ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:59:04 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:59:20 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:59:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Could have known? To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I found this little piece in Krzysztof Jassem's daily > > report from Life Master Pairs in Toronto. > > > > Day 2: > > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. > > > > Tuszynski Jassem > > W N E S > > pass pass 3C ...pass > > pass pass > > > > 975 > > Q964 > > KQJ1083 > > --- > > QJ1032 864 > > AJ72 8 > > 952 A74 > > 2 AK8763 > > AK > > K1053 > > 6 > > QJ10954 > > > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > > When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he > > would have certainly re-opened with 3D. > > > > So he admits that he has been using UI to determine what to > bid. > "certainly would have re-opened" - so there is no LA in his > mind. > By the minute of hesitation, South has made certain that > North knows there is a real hesitation - not just a waiting > for an alert. > > > Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. > > I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. > > Do we apply "could have known" here? > > > > I would ask South what he was thinking about. Why, if you are going to adjust the score anyway? Then I would > rule against North-South. > Amazing, this ! What amazes me most is that we seem not to know how to handle this, trying to find 'could have known' to support a decision. While in my opinion L16 deals with such a case. Anyone objecting the conclusion that the pass could have been suggested by the hesitation? Or are you going to say that pass can't be considered to be a logical alternative? ton > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 20:26:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PAPH528832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:25:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PAPAt28826 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:25:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA30565; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:22:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jul 25 12:21:03 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6CJ6HU5OO0004SD@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:21:25 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:21:40 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:21:23 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Acquiescence, revoke and what now... To: "'Romanski Jan'" , "BLML (E-mail)" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This seems to happen quite often! May I ask Grattan to make this case a point on our agenda in Bali? And let us add the question about the claim in which claimer tells that he is going to revoke. We already had the problem that a defender claims some tricks and concedes some as well. Now his partner objects the concession. Does play continue? After Bali everybody may do what he wants concerning claims and concessions without bringing the TD in troubles. But please wait for a couple of months now. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Romanski Jan [mailto:Jan.Romanski@icl.com] > Verzonden: dinsdag 24 juli 2001 21:59 > Aan: BLML (E-mail) > Onderwerp: [BLML] Acquiescence, revoke and what now... > > > The following case divided us (directors of Baltic Congress in Sopot, > Poland) into two, almost equall groups. > Pairs, last board in the round, spade contract: > > K108x > - > - > x > x Qxx > xx x > x x > x - > AJ9xx > - > - > - > > In the trick number nine declarer played ace of spades from > hand. LHO failed > to follow suit. Declarer said "OK, queen of spades for you, > rest is mine". > Opponents agreed, all put cards to the board and the result > was recorded. > There was no signal for following round, so they started to > analyse and it > shows that LHO has made a revoke. > Is this the established revoke? > What about the same case in the last board of the session? > > Jan Romanski > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 20:57:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PAtmY29544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6PAtft29538 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6PAqwN23192 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:52:58 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:52 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Could have known? 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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Ton wrote: > What amazes me most is that we seem not to know how to handle this, > trying to find 'could have known' to support a decision. While in my > opinion L16 deals with such a case. Anyone objecting the conclusion that > the pass could have been suggested by the hesitation? It does go against normal practice. Most of us (I think) believe that the auction 3x, slow P - P - ? suggests bidding on marginal values and adjust accordingly. Personal experience tells us this is usually right. If we say pass is also suggested we may as well just automatically penalise the hesitation. > Or are you going to say that pass > can't be considered to be a logical alternative? No. We are left with "Is choosing a call over 3C a genuine bridge problem?" If not we have any easy adjustment because reducing the chances of partner making a call could easily be the best approach on this hand so the "could have known" bit is easy. I don't know the answer - of course if RHO has a 3C opener it's an obvious pass. But look at your club intermediates - don't you think that East has probably psyched. The swine has "obviously" got a 3D opener. Now that's a really tough cookie. Pard probably won't bid and you are vul vs not. This is pairs, not teams, so even 9 off undoubled won't compensate for a missed game. It took me more than a minute to work out that there was no possible sequence I could use to expose the psyche and/or find a sensible spot to play. So, IMO. South has his think. North did his best to avoid suggested actions. Result stands. 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 Jul 25 21:11:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PB8qm29818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:08:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6PB8jt29812 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:08:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6PB63X01701 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:06:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:06 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25A 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: John Probst wrote: > >I, and I suspect David, will wish to investigate further. Perhaps you > are >guilty of frivolous psyching. If I am happy with your explanation > (I >almost certainly will be) I give you your A+ - if not I will award > >whatever the normal penalty is for frivolous psyching. Either way my > >ruling will be judgement issue and you will probably get little joy > from >the L&E. > > > > "I couldn't possibly reveal to you the means by which I compute my > parity bits. Not even my partner knows how I do it". Which, of course, is an acceptable answer. Anyone who tells me they have a 5 bit parity calculation for psyching and a frequency of 1/32 is obviously not guilty of frivolous psyching. I have no need to know what parity bits you use. (Although if you use the same at rubber I will no doubt find the information financially rewarding). 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 Jul 25 22:16:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PCEoi02715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:14:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from apeiba.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.154]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PCEgt02704 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from citronier.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.222) by apeiba.wanadoo.fr; 25 Jul 2001 14:11:54 +0200 Received: from beauvillain (193.249.29.231) by citronier.wanadoo.fr; 25 Jul 2001 14:11:30 +0200 Message-ID: <004401c11503$1a8e40a0$e71df9c1@beauvillain> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:12:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0041_01C11513.DD90C9A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C11513.DD90C9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am glad to know that I shall go to the course, but by now nobody told = me! Can someone (Ton?) confirm me (directly) what happens? Olivier. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: David Stevenson=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:29 PM Subject: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano I have been asked which members of BLML will be at this course. I hope that many will attend that I do not know. The following I = believe are attending: Course tutors and other staff: Ton Kooijman Olivier Beauvillain Bertrand Gignoux Rui Marques Maurizio Di Sacco David Stevenson Grattan Endicott Course members: Jesper Dybdal Sergei Litvak Sergey Kapustin Anne Jones [STC] So, who else is coming? --=20 David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =3D( + = )=3D Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au = with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at = http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C11513.DD90C9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am glad to know that I shall go to the course, but by now nobody = told=20 me!
Can someone (Ton?) confirm me (directly) what happens?
Olivier.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 David = Stevenson
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 = 10:29=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] EBL TD course = in=20 Tabiano


  I have been asked which members of BLML will = be at=20 this course.  I
hope that many will attend that I do not = know. =20 The following I believe
are attending:

  Course tutors = and=20 other staff:

Ton Kooijman
Olivier Beauvillain
Bertrand=20 Gignoux
Rui Marques
Maurizio Di Sacco
David = Stevenson
Grattan=20 Endicott

  Course members:

Jesper Dybdal
Sergei=20 Litvak
Sergey Kapustin
Anne Jones [STC]



  = So, who=20 else is coming?

--
David=20 = Stevenson          &nbs= p;   =20 Bridge   RTFLB   Cats   = Railways   /\=20 /\
Liverpool, England, UK        = Fax:=20 +44 870 055=20 = 7697           &nb= sp;  =20 @ @
<bridge@blakjak.com>  =        =20 ICQ 20039682      bluejak on OKB  =3D( + = = )=3D
           = ;  =20 Lawspage:       http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm<= /A>     =20 = ~
--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D
(Un)Subscribing?=20 Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the=20 message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.= anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ------=_NextPart_000_0041_01C11513.DD90C9A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 23:17:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PDFjL05520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:15:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r05.mx.aol.com (imo-r05.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PDFat05511 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:15:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id r.d7.9b37252 (3956); Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:12:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:12:49 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: john@asimere.com, gester@lineone.net CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d7.9b37252.28901fd1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_d7.9b37252.28901fd1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/24/01 9:55:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@asimere.com writes: > Much as I dislike the 7NT bid, I can't see a way to stop it. > > I can't see a way to STOP it either. That's not the problem. What to do when it happens is the nut. But I can see a way in Law 88 after cancelling the board that gets the player less than the A+ he was looking for. He caused the board to be unplayable by violating Law 16B. I don't think that even your celebrated and quoted superstar would take a chance of making a far out call with the West cards if he had no knowledge of the existence of a previous action by West, thereby subjecting himself to a possible horrendous result that can never be explained to partner. HIs "normal"action contains a measure of safety when it is not based on previous knowledge, but to have that knowledge and then pick a call that makes it look like you don't have it is immoral, fattening, and forbidden by 16B. He should notify the TD that he knows that West took an action, and on the basis of that he is contemplating taking an action that is not his NORMAL bridge call in order to get 60%. By not telling the TD what he knows has happened, he is in violation of Law 16B. Being forthrightly honest he now, of course, makes the board unplayable under 16B since he has the choice of not accepting a substitute under that Law. Ergo, he gets his 60% - which I think is what needs to be changed. I am much in favor of his getting his percentage on all other boards of this session. Please also look at the Scope of the Laws. Does his action negate the purpose of the Laws? What you think, kemo sabe? Kojak --part1_d7.9b37252.28901fd1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/24/01 9:55:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, john@asimere.com
writes:



Much as I dislike the 7NT bid, I can't see a way to stop it.





I can't see a way to STOP it either. That's not the problem.  What to do when
it happens is the nut.  But I can see a way in Law 88 after cancelling the
board that gets the player less than the A+ he was looking for.  He caused
the board to be unplayable by violating Law 16B.
I don't think that even your celebrated and quoted superstar would take a
chance of making a far out call with the West cards if he had no knowledge of
the existence of a previous action by West, thereby subjecting himself to a
possible horrendous result that can never be explained to partner. HIs
"normal"action contains a measure of safety when it is not based on previous
knowledge, but to have that knowledge and then pick a call that makes it look
like you don't have it is immoral, fattening, and forbidden by 16B. He should
notify the TD that he knows that West took an action, and on the basis of
that he is contemplating taking an action that is not his NORMAL bridge call
in order to get 60%. By not telling the TD what he knows has happened, he is
in violation of Law 16B. Being forthrightly honest he now, of course, makes
the board unplayable under 16B since he has the choice of not accepting a
substitute under that Law.  Ergo, he gets his 60% - which I think is what
needs to be changed. I am much in favor of his getting his percentage on all
other boards of this session.


 Please also look at the Scope of the Laws.  Does his action negate the
purpose of the Laws?

What you think, kemo sabe?

Kojak --part1_d7.9b37252.28901fd1_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 23:17:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PDFin05518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:15:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PDFZt05510 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:15:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id 5.ad.ddb9420 (3956); Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:12:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 09:12:48 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_ad.ddb9420.28901fd0_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_ad.ddb9420.28901fd0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/25/01 5:22:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hermandw@village.uunet.be writes: > So we are now stuck with a law that does not prohibit this, > and I therefor believe that it is not illegal. > > Ah, come on Herman. There are more things not specifically prohibited by Law than there are things permitted by Law. Does that make them all legal? I thought we killed this bird a long time ago. I go along that the Law might have been better written and this foreseen, but I have no trouble with handling it in the real world. Do you think Edgar put ".....otherwise play continues normally......" in there as a gratuitous comment? Kojak --part1_ad.ddb9420.28901fd0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/25/01 5:22:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hermandw@village.uunet.be writes:



So we are now stuck with a law that does not prohibit this,
and I therefor believe that it is not illegal.





Ah, come on Herman. There are more things not specifically prohibited by Law
than there are things permitted by Law. Does that make them all legal? I
thought we killed this bird a long time ago.  I go along that the Law might
have been better written and this foreseen, but I have no trouble with
handling it in the real world.  Do you think Edgar put ".....otherwise play
continues normally......" in there as a gratuitous comment?

Kojak --part1_ad.ddb9420.28901fd0_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 25 23:38:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PDb8806621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:37:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6PDb0t06610 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 23:37:01 +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 15POno-000LsC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:34:17 +0100 Message-ID: <8CUexSBRXsX7EwLy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 14:12:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <61BAB88372D3D111B33F0000F6B081D1040BB5F1@GUHKIP03> <004301c11453$e6159620$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> 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 >>In my view walking around with an >>open fly is a clear breach of L74A2. > >Perhaps, if it's done deliberately. C'mon, Ed, it is a breach even if not. But Directors act reasonably - first they tell him to "adjust his dress". If he does not they take further action. Ed Reppert writes >>In my reading of the Laws, all we need to determine is whether the offender >>"could have known" that walking around with one's fly open might cause >>annoyance or embarrassment of another player or might interfere with >>other players' enjoyment of the game. > >I was thinking that it seems a bit much to penalize somebody for >walking around unaware that his fly is open. Of course it is! There is no reason for Directors to act as total toss-pots: it is not a requirement, you know. Who suggested penalising him? I said it was illegal. I tell him to do something about it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 00:53:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PEm8H10019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:48:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PEm1t10009 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:48:01 +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 KAA24220 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:45:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA13746 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:45:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:45:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107251445.KAA13746@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > if one player hesitates because he doesn't have > a clear bid, and his partner scrupulously follows Law 16, and the lie > of the cards is such that the ethically correct call works better than > other alternatives might have, the opponents could ask for an > adjustment based on L73D1. Well, they can ask, but they won't get one unless all the conditions are met. In particular, under L72B1 the player who broke tempo must have a hand where he "could have known" that his action would be "likely" to damage the opposing side. A normal tempo case is the exact opposite. A player has values, hesitates and passes, and partner cannot act because of L16. This is the exact opposite of what a villain would wish to do: he _wants_ his partner to act. If his partner's forced pass happens to work well, the side keeps its score. If the villain hesitates, "silencing partner," in a situation where he _wants_ partner to pass, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Now we have 73D1 and 72B1. Another key point is the one Tim pointed out. L72D1 deals with _inadvertent_ variations of tempo. Yes, the headings are not part of the law, but the text says "be particularly careful." If a player needs to think through a genuine bridge problem, he is still being careful. In that case, there is no irregularity and no occasion to apply 72B1. _That_ is why I want to ask the player what he was thinking about. There really isn't a problem here, or at least not a major one, and at least not in the straightforward 72D1, 73B1 cases. Was the tempo break an irregularity? Could the player have known that it would be _likely_ to damage the opponents? If so adjust. Application in specific cases may involve difficult bridge judgments, of course. _In addition to the above_, I have suggested that it is possible to go directly from L72D1 to L12A1. This is much more fraught with the kind of peril Adam sees, and I don't expect this possibility to be without controversy. I am not at all sure, myself, when, if ever, it should be applied. _At the minimum_, the tempo break would have to be wholly without bridge merit. Also, it would have to be a position where the player might see that tempo breaks "may work to the benefit" of his side. The difference is that "likely" is absent because we don't go through 72B1. In effect, we are declaring the hesitation itself an infraction. That surely must be extremely rare, but I am not sure it is impossible. No matter what you think about this second and additional possibility, a straightforward L72D1, 72B1 case is no legal problem. SW> I would ask South what he was thinking about. > From: "Kooijman, A." > Why, if you are going to adjust the score anyway? See above. If he gives the answer Tim gave (trying to figure out how to recover from RHO's "obvious psych," I won't be adjusting the score. If he says "I was thinking about Wendy," the result is different. > While in my opinion L16 > deals with such a case. Anyone objecting the conclusion that the pass could > have been suggested by the hesitation? Yes, I think most of us object to that. Normally a slow pass over a preempt suggests values and therefore action, and thus 3D is suggested over pass. Wouldn't a villain whose partner has passed slowly (and who doesn't expect the TD to enforce the rules) be bidding 3D (or maybe 4D or 5D) in a flash? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 01:48:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PFkWQ12827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PFkOt12817 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f6PFfo529461 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:41:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 11:34:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:24 AM +0200 7/25/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: >So this is the most interesting part of the question. If we only read L82C >this seems to be the right approach. But given the fact that one pair >couldn't get more than average-minus and knowing that a TD is allowed to use >more than one law when solving an irregularity my decision would have been >A+/A-. Is this fact a fact, in fact? :-) Law 25B says the pair can get only avg- *if the player changes his call*. Since this player never had the option explained to him, perhaps he might have decided *not* to change the call -- and in that case, his side is not limited to avg-, as I read 25B2(b)(1). I suppose there's also some slight chance that, had the TD explained Law 25B, offender's LHO might have condoned the change of call (perhaps not - I haven't gone back to see if this was addressed previously). In that case, too, the OS are not limited to avg-. Unless I've misread the law, which is entirely possible. :-) 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/AwUBO17pGb2UW3au93vOEQJXWQCgsLPrUPDYu2o44ZALX7sCkW3oI/IAoJ2C JpH8izxP2ZpyzsK0g5k3MQFC =j8oN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 03:26:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PHOIw17681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:24:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6PHOBt17668 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 03:24:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6PHLSL17164 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:21:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107251721.f6PHLSL17164@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:21:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Jul 24, 2001 06:02:09 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 > >David Stevenson writes: > > >> Oh well, if that is your approach, then count me out. I believe the > >> 7NT bid is illegal in some situations by the Laws of bridge. > > >But your sole argument is based on 74A2 and I just don't see how > >it can stretch to accomodate this. > > > >It's never frivolous to take an action that guarantees a 60% score, even > >if your sole motivation is actually to finish the round early and dash off > >for a smoke. No matter what your motivation you will have taken an action > >that is consistent with attempting to win the board. > > Is that enough? You believe it acceptable to stop your opponents > actually playing the board in a position where it could be played? Sure. Because that to me is what the Laws fairly clearly say -- and seem to intend to say (since a cautionarity footnote could have been added). And I'll support people who argue that the 7NT call is illegal when the plain language of the law in question says so. > > I have already pointed out that if your action is taken to try to win > the event then I do not see L74A2 as relevant. You think that if you > have no interest in winning the event or letting your opponents play hte > board it makes no difference? Look at it this way, if you've got that little interest in the event then perhaps (under the you've got to try to win every board directive) taking the A+ should be mandatory. What's your statistical expectation if you've given up on the event? How about other considerations. THere are people I'd take an A+ to avoid. They're that much of a pain to play against. And there are people whose reasons for trying to force the A+ are not so much score optimization, but a general feeling that directors (not you personally) don't do an adequate job of defending their interests. If that's the case, you may well get a flip answer when you investigate. Why go there? They want an A+ and as best I can tell, the Laws give it to them. > >But what I find particularly worrisome is that this approach will > >encourage other directors to use 74A2 to rule against actions that > >they don't approve of. > > If actions are done with the sole effect of upsetting opponents then > in some cases L74A2 applies, certainly. I know of more than a few players who believe that upsetting the opposition is a way to improve your score. Thus they psyche against people who hate psyching for instance. It's an action calculated to both maximize their score and affect the enjoyment of their opposition. > > >Mike Lawrence's 3C opener on a 4 card suit for instance (see his play > >with me matchpoints book) > > Frivolous psyching is illegal: attempting to win, if necessary by > psyching or by playing strange but legal methods is not illegal. I > believe the distinction is clear: whether it applies to any specific > situation is [as so often] a matter of judgement. I'm certainly not opposed to good directors using judgement. I just don't see the Laws as currently written coming close to suporting your position here. I think John's done a nice job of summing up my position. Not that it matters, but if you want the laws changed, you have my support. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 06:02:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PK00i04607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:00:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PJxpt04592 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 05:59:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-201.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.201]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f6PJvB229345 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:57:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <029201c11544$89e17c60$c93d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3B5D45C3.6030900@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 22:00:44 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Konrad Ciborowski" asked: > Hi all, > > I found this little piece in Krzysztof Jassem's daily > report from Life Master Pairs in Toronto. > > Day 2: > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. > > Tuszynski Jassem > W N E S > pass pass 3C ...pass > pass pass > > > 975 > Q964 > KQJ1083 > --- > QJ1032 864 > AJ72 8 > 952 A74 > 2 AK8763 > AK > K1053 > 6 > QJ10954 > > > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he > would have certainly re-opened with 3D. Assuming that N's statement is ╢similar to "I would have reopened with 3D, but I consider pass to be an LA, and X and 3D seem to be suggested by the hesitation (note the vulnerability)", I see no problem with N's pass. Furthermore, if N/S really would be playing "reverse hesitations", then an unethical N probably would have reopened with a double. > Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. > I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. > Do we apply "could have known" here? We could apply "could have known" here, if we thought that S's hesitation has no bridge reason. I.e. ask S why it took him one minute to decide to pass. Finally, note that "could have known" requires that S has reason to expect that getting N to pass will create an advantage, i.e that the 150 or so from 3C undoubled will get a good score. This is very doubtful because N will have to pass rather than reopen with a marginal double which S could convert. 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 Jul 26 06:11:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PKAU105917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:10:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6PKAOt05907 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:10:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA58375; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:07:06 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:07:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1154D.D2653E00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'David Stevenson'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:07:31 +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 I have been asked which members of BLML will be at this course. I hope that many will attend that I do not know. The following I believe are attending: Course tutors and other staff: Ton Kooijman Olivier Beauvillain Bertrand Gignoux Rui Marques Maurizio Di Sacco David Stevenson Grattan Endicott Course members: Jesper Dybdal Sergei Litvak Sergey Kapustin Anne Jones [STC] So, who else is coming? I am looking forward to meeting all my BLML friends and others. 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 Jul 26 06:22:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PKKk107164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:20:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PKKdt07135 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:20:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA61619 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:17:51 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:18:18 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1154F.52F0D880.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 21:18:17 +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 Peter wrpte: A recent article in Australian Bridge (July 2001, p12 for those who have it) written by a player in the recently held PABF wrote: "There was some academic interest on Board 5. Chadwick did not see Clark's redouble of her 2D bid (for rescue) and passed. She called the director in order to change her bid - under 'inadvertency' - but was informed she was not allowed to do so. She questioned this ruling, but was made to play 2D redoubled for -1000. At the end of the session the director returned, advising that her previous ruling was incorrect and the board would be scrubbed, with each side being given 3 imps on the board" It struck me that it isn't obvious that not seeing a bid would cause your call to become inadvertent. Is it generally accepted that it does? Cheers, When the TD returned to say his original ruling was incorrect I think he was saying that he was correct about 25A not being applicable and that his error was that he had forgot 25B. We can discuss the A+/A+ later! 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 Jul 26 06:30:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PKSiG08095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:28:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PKSbt08082 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 06:28:38 +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 QAA12073 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA14105 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:25:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:25:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107252025.QAA14105@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > We can discuss the A+/A+ later! I think David S. will have something to say on that subject! And I don't think it will be hard to predict what it is. All together now: "No artificial score when a result has been obtained." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 09:39:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6PNX7p09805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:33:07 +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 (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6PNX1t09801 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:33:01 +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 TAA18151 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA14322 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 19:30:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107252330.TAA14322@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I am still trying to find someone who will explain what > is wrong with my argument. I'd like to know too. Suppose we ask the player why he bid 7NT. Would those who think the 7NT bid is legal still think so if the player says something like "I was bored and just wanted to do something unusual to see what would happen?" Would those who think the 7NT bid is illegal still think so if the player says something like "Taking 60% from these opponents should be enough to win the event?" In other words, do blml'ers who are sure the bid is legal/illegal care why it was made? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 18:17:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6Q8FMu26343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:15:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6Q8FEt26316 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:15:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-46-25.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.46.25] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15PgFP-000JZH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01c115aa$ed4302e0$192e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200107252330.TAA14322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:12:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > In other words, do blml'ers who are sure the > bid is legal/illegal care why it was made? > -- +=+ I think every contributor to this massive thread is troubled. There is no doubt that, unless the first player bid 7NT, the board is cancelled for the two correctly seated sides. I have been defending the position that since the second auction has not contravened any of the laws governing procedure in the auction there is no basis currently for awarding a penalty. Under Law 81B2 the Director cannot go outside of the Laws. Some are outraged by the player's action and seek to find somewhere in the laws grounds for penalizing the player for his action, on the basis that it is "non-bridge" (a term extraneous to the law book) or the like. A variety of thoughts has been expressed as to where in the laws there is something to serve the purpose. To me they all look pretty thin and contrived, but if the WBFLC were to agree an interpretation of the laws that would have the effect I would dutifully follow its decision. The latest effort seems to have picked up the words 'play continues normally'. Reading 15C carefully we find: (a) that the prior statement is "A second auction begins". This I construe to mean any auction which is legal under Laws 17 through 40. It contains no condition. (b) after it is established that no call "differs in any way from the corresponding call in the first auction" the law then states that "play continues normally". This is subsequent to (a) and conditional; the word 'normally' is obscure, but I think it means 'in accordance with the laws'; I do not think it refers to the player's judgement of the call or his motivation, and in any case does not qualify action prior to the condition being established. [We get into murky water once we interfere with a player's freedom to judge his lawful action. It runs counter to long established principle to do so.] The 7NT bid appears to fit the definition of a 'psychic call'. Our treatment of such calls is based upon a pattern in most regulations I am aware of, and there is no pattern in an isolated occurrence. But a regulation might be found here or there that could be applied. I am loath to think that a single bid made within the laws governing procedure in the auction could be construed as causing "annoyance or embarrassment to another player" or interfering in "the enjoyment of the game" - especially if the other side expresses no such feelings. But Law 74A2 could perhaps be developed to be a source of comfort to harsher attitudes. I am unsure exactly how this might be done - do we require the player to bid according to his CC without the latitude he would have had if he had been seated at the table from the start of the round? That does not seem altogether fair. Any treatment of this example 7NT bid, which is conspicuous, ought to apply equally to an example where a player's knowledge of the player who was incorrectly seated enables him to use the knowledge less glaringly: he might open one of a minor where he knows the first player would open 1NT; or One Spade, on a four card suit, where he knows the first player opens one of a minor on the hand. The whole question is far too complicated for the kind of band-aid solutions that have been floating around. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 20:03:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QA1QI10638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:01:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6QA1Lt10625 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:01:21 +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 15Phud-000Fkq-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:58:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:54:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano References: <01C1154D.D2653E00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C1154D.D2653E00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following I believe are attending: Course tutors and other staff: Ton Kooijman Olivier Beauvillain Bertrand Gignoux Rui Marques Maurizio Di Sacco David Stevenson Grattan Endicott Course members: Jesper Dybdal Sergei Litvak Sergey Kapustin Anne Jones Ken Richardson Fearghal O'Boyle -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 20:03:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QA1d510671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:01:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QA1Vt10649 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:01:31 +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 15Phuh-000Nj3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:58:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:51:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] My travels MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am about to go on my travels. Tomorrow [Thurs 26th] I go to Skovde in Sweden to direct at a Swedish National event for nine days. I hope to meet any of you who are playing or directing there. I return on Mon 6th and leave for Brighton, England on Thurs 9th. Back home on Mon 20th, to London on Wed 22nd and back next day, and then to Tabiano in Italy on Fri 31st, back on Mon 6th. While I am away I have no idea whether I shall have email access or not, but if anyone does want to email me for any reason they should send a copy to my travelling eddress, ie . -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 20:03:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QA1dK10669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:01:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6QA1St10643 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:01:29 +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 15Phug-000Fm4-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:58:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:48:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <200107251721.f6PHLSL17164@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200107251721.f6PHLSL17164@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson writes >David Stevenson writes: >> I have already pointed out that if your action is taken to try to win >> the event then I do not see L74A2 as relevant. You think that if you >> have no interest in winning the event or letting your opponents play hte >> board it makes no difference? >Look at it this way, if you've got that little interest in the event >then perhaps (under the you've got to try to win every board directive) >taking the A+ should be mandatory. What's your statistical expectation >if you've given up on the event? I am not worrying about the pair that bids 7NT, per se: I am worrying about their opponents. If their opponents are happy - for example, if they agree with them to bid 7NT - then L74A2 does not apply. >How about other considerations. THere are people I'd take an A+ to >avoid. They're that much of a pain to play against. > >And there are people whose reasons for trying to force the A+ are not >so much score optimization, but a general feeling that directors >(not you personally) don't do an adequate job of defending their >interests. If that's the case, you may well get a flip answer when >you investigate. Why go there? They want an A+ and as best I can tell, >the Laws give it to them. Well, if a player wants to get an A+ because he does not trust the Directors, and his opponent is upset by it, and the Director deals with him, he won't get my sympathy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 20:35:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QAXr514935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:33:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f6QAXlt14912 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 20:33:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15PiPy-0007oc-0Y for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:31:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:25:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , Schoderb@aol.com writes >> Just a passing thought. ═Since in the WBF pairs Championships it is >> a >> historical given that the event is won by a 54 to 55 % game, what >> do you >> think of a player who purposely circumvents the Laws, knowing that >> his side >> has made a call, and causes an assignment of 60% to his side? Or >> was the call >> taken sufficiently "normal" in the caswe of the superstar so often >> cited, so >> that it might not cause a disaster if the previous holder of the >> cards had >> not taken any action and it had to live? >> >> Kojak > >Kojak, I hate it. I give him 60%. > >Change the damned Law :) Or wait for a situation such as this.... North is dealer, but East / West are at the wrong table. The mistake is discovered after North passes, but before East bids. The correct pair are seated and the director informs that players that unless the auction is repeated exactly as before ... blah blah blah ... the board will be cancelled and scored 60%/60%. North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting the director to give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead. -- 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 Jul 26 21:58:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QBuO825738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:56:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QBuHt25726 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f6QBrRg07065; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:53:28 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f6QBrRe28529; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:53:27 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:53:27 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA07935; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:53:26 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA12026; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:53:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:53:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200107261153.MAA12026@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:25:27 +0100 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > From: Steve Wright > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > Or wait for a situation such as this.... > > North is dealer, but East / West are at the wrong table. The mistake is > discovered after North passes, but before East bids. The correct pair > are seated and the director informs that players that unless the auction > is repeated exactly as before ... blah blah blah ... the board will be > cancelled and scored 60%/60%. > > North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting the director to > give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead. I award an adjusted score against the director. :-) The information "unless the auction is repeated exactly as before ... blah blah blah ... " is gratitous: the instruction "North must pass because he passed against the previous opponents" will suffice. So I rule against the director under L72B1: he could have known that it might damage the non-offenders to suggest there was a call by their side that they may, or may not, want to repeat. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 23:32:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QDUou08641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:30:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f6QDUht08615 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:30:44 +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 15PlB7-000Oz0-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:27:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:22:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? References: <200107252330.TAA14322@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003f01c115aa$ed4302e0$192e7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003f01c115aa$ed4302e0$192e7bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: Steve Willner >> In other words, do blml'ers who are sure the >> bid is legal/illegal care why it was made? >Under Law 81B2 the Director cannot go outside >of the Laws. In this we are agreed. > Some are outraged by the player's action >and seek to find somewhere in the laws grounds >for penalizing the player for his action, on the >basis that it is "non-bridge" (a term extraneous >to the law book) or the like. Several people have expressed views, and the above has been said a few times. But it seems to ignore my position, and at least half the posters so far, who are not outraged in any way. I have merely suggested that 7NT may be illegal, and if so should not be permitted. I have not searched to find a reason for 7NT to be illegal because I am outraged. If it is legal, so be it. I just am not convinced that it is legal, and the suggestion that people like myself have searched for something is not worthy. > I am loath to think that a single bid made >within the laws governing procedure in the >auction could be construed as causing >"annoyance or embarrassment to another >player" or interfering in "the enjoyment of the >game" - especially if the other side expresses >no such feelings. Perhaps this has not been considered enough. If both sides want to go to the bar then I agree L74A2 does not apply. I have been assuming that the effect of the 7NT bid is that the other side do not get to play hte board when they wish to. Bad assumption. OK, I shall modify my position. If a pair bids 7NT so as not to play the board, when [a] this is not done as a winning strategy *and* [b] their opponents would prefer to play the board, then I believe that l74A2 applies - not otherwise. > But Law 74A2 could perhaps >be developed to be a source of comfort to >harsher attitudes. I am unsure exactly how >this might be done - do we require the player >to bid according to his CC without the latitude >he would have had if he had been seated at >the table from the start of the round? That >does not seem altogether fair. Of course not. We just apply L74A2 with the normal judgement that people who do unreasonable things to upset opponents are doing soemthing illegal. > Any treatment of this example 7NT bid, >which is conspicuous, ought to apply equally >to an example where a player's knowledge of >the player who was incorrectly seated enables >him to use the knowledge less glaringly: he >might open one of a minor where he knows the >first player would open 1NT; or One Spade, on >a four card suit, where he knows the first >player opens one of a minor on the hand. The >whole question is far too complicated for >the kind of band-aid solutions that have been >floating around. That is no reason not to follow the Laws - that it is too complicated. Please help to develop this by answering these questions: [1] Do you agree that totally frivolous psyching by a player with no interest in the event is illegal? [2] Under which Law? [3] How does this differ from bidding 7NT in this situation? I know 7NT is not a psyche, per se, but how does the effect differ? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 23:42:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QDeqq10700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:40:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m01.mx.aol.com (imo-m01.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QDekt10690 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:40:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id a.11b.216fff4 (4555); Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:37:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <11b.216fff4.2891771e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:37:34 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11b.216fff4.2891771e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_11b.216fff4.2891771e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/26/01 6:34:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk writes: > North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting the director to > give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead. > > > Exactly my point. I can't believe any reasonable player would call 7NT or any other way-out call without knowing that there had been a previous call in his seat. That is why I think that Law 16B could be applied as a basis for action with minimal stretching. I agree that he can call as he likes, but what he likes can't be based on prior knowledge. Does someone think there is a justification for canceling the board if the previous auction had been no more than a Pass by RHO? Kojak --part1_11b.216fff4.2891771e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/26/01 6:34:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk writes:




North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting the director to
give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead.








Exactly my point.  I can't believe any reasonable player would call 7NT or
any other way-out call without knowing that there had been a previous call in
his seat. That is why I think that Law 16B could be applied as a basis for
action with minimal stretching.  I agree that he can call as he likes, but   
what he likes can't be based on prior knowledge. Does someone think there is
a justification for canceling the board if the previous auction had been no
more than a Pass by RHO?

Kojak --part1_11b.216fff4.2891771e_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 26 23:42:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QDfEP10766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:41:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m01.mx.aol.com (imo-m01.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QDf7t10748 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:41:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id s.d6.9c77797 (4555); Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:37:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 09:37:32 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: cyaxares@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d6.9c77797.2891771c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_d6.9c77797.2891771c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/26/01 4:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > The > whole question is far too complicated for > the kind of band-aid solutions that have been > floating around. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Certainly true, and includes ALL opinions that have been offered, including the most simplistic ones like do nothing but apply 15C. BLML is a discussion group I thought was organized for just such arguments to be proposed. Since no official position has been, or should be, stated it remains for the various LCs to address the topic if they so desire. Ton might wish to make this an agenda item for the WBFLC. Kojak > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --part1_d6.9c77797.2891771c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/26/01 4:16:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyaxares@lineone.net writes:





The
whole question is far too complicated for
the kind of band-aid solutions that have been
floating around.        ~ Grattan ~ +=+








Certainly true, and includes ALL opinions that have been offered, including
the most simplistic ones like do nothing but apply 15C. BLML  is a discussion
group I thought was organized for just such arguments to be proposed.  Since
no official position has been, or should be, stated it remains for the
various LCs to address the topic if they so desire.  Ton might wish to make
this an agenda item for the WBFLC.

Kojak










   

















--part1_d6.9c77797.2891771c_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 Jul 27 00:18:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QEH4R16849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:17:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QEGvt16834 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:16:58 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA05543; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:14:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jul 26 16:12:45 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6E5KWATO20006DK@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:13:45 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:14:00 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:13:42 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: "'Schoderb@aol.com'" , cyaxares@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C9@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The whole question is far too complicated for the kind of band-aid solutions that have been floating around. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Certainly true, and includes ALL opinions that have been offered, including the most simplistic ones like do nothing but apply 15C. BLML is a discussion group I thought was organized for just such arguments to be proposed. Since no official position has been, or should be, stated it remains for the various LCs to address the topic if they so desire. Ton might wish to make this an agenda item for the WBFLC. Kojak Given the fundamental differences it seems necessary to address it there. Even if the main outcome is that we need a clarification for the 2005 edition it is worth it. May we ask Grattan to bring the opinions given in BLML contributions back from thousand and one to three pages? 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 Jul 27 05:42:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QJfCd26107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:41:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe65.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QJf4t26080 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:41:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:37:41 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.197] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <11b.216fff4.2891771e@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:03:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 19:37:41.0515 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F41C5B0:01C1160A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Declarer calls for dummy's card OOT. Are we to feel ill will toward the = LHO that wants to enforce the mandatory play of the card? Many do. But = there is a vast difference between a player seeking redress for an = opponent's infraction and one that seeks to extract an 'unearned' = advantage by gambling. That is what is known as sharp practice. At the = poker table it is called angle shooting. In this thread the gambling 7NT is rooted in the attitude and character = of the player when combined with necessity meeting opportunity. At the = table it very well might occur to me that I could gamble 7NT but it = would never occur to me to actually do it.=20 But what of the player who does? I do not believe that TFLB suggests in = any way that doing so is an infraction and I dread the consequences of = twisting the FLB to make it an infraction. Nevertheless there ought to = be a way to explain the kind of attitude that will be thought highly of- = so that when called upon all players might have the opportunity to = exemplify it. I am thinking that such a place would be an appendix. I am = also thinking that it will take a clear view of what bridge is to get it = right. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Schoderb@aol.com=20 To: usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In a message dated 7/26/01 6:34:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk writes:=20 North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting the = director to=20 give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead.=20 Exactly my point. I can't believe any reasonable player would call = 7NT or=20 any other way-out call without knowing that there had been a previous = call in=20 his seat. That is why I think that Law 16B could be applied as a basis = for=20 action with minimal stretching. I agree that he can call as he likes, = but =20 what he likes can't be based on prior knowledge. =20 Kojak=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Declarer calls for dummy’s card OOT. Are we to feel ill will = toward the LHO=20 that wants to enforce the mandatory play of the card? Many do. But there = is a=20 vast difference between a player seeking redress for an opponent’s = infraction=20 and one that seeks to extract an ‘unearned’ advantage by = gambling. That is what=20 is known as sharp practice. At the poker table it is called angle = shooting.

In this thread the gambling 7NT is rooted in the attitude and = character of=20 the player when combined with necessity meeting opportunity. At the = table it=20 very well might occur to me that I could gamble 7NT but it would never = occur to=20 me to actually do it.

But what of the player who does? I do not believe that TFLB suggests = in any=20 way that doing so is an infraction and I dread the consequences of = twisting the=20 FLB to make it an infraction. Nevertheless there ought to be a way to = explain=20 the kind of attitude that will be thought highly of- so that when called = upon=20 all players might have the opportunity to exemplify it. I am thinking = that such=20 a place would be an appendix. I am also thinking that it will take a = clear view=20 of what bridge is to get it right.

regards

roger pewick

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Schoderb@aol.com=20
To: usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk = ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 = 8:37=20 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for = an=20 AAS....?

In a = message dated=20 7/26/01 6:34:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk= =20 writes:

North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting = the=20 director to
give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead.=20
Exactly my point.  I can't believe any reasonable player = would=20 call 7NT or
any other way-out call without knowing that there had = been a=20 previous call in
his seat. That is why I think that Law 16B could = be=20 applied as a basis for
action with minimal stretching.  I = agree that=20 he can call as he likes, but   
what he likes can't be = based on=20 prior knowledge. 
 
Kojak
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 27 05:42:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QJdP025775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:39:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe47.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QJdJt25766 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 05:39:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 12:36:30 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.197] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <11b.216fff4.2891771e@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 14:03:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2001 19:36:30.0159 (UTC) FILETIME=[44B9B5F0:01C1160A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Declarer calls for dummy's card OOT. Are we to feel ill will toward the = LHO that wants to enforce the mandatory play of the card? Many do. But = there is a vast difference between a player seeking redress for an = opponent's infraction and one that seeks to extract an 'unearned' = advantage by gambling. That is what is known as sharp practice. At the = poker table it is called angle shooting. In this thread the gambling 7NT is rooted in the attitude and character = of the player when combined with necessity meeting opportunity. At the = table it very well might occur to me that I could gamble 7NT but it = would never occur to me to actually do it.=20 But what of the player who does? I do not believe that TFLB suggests in = any way that doing so is an infraction and I dread the consequences of = twisting the FLB to make it an infraction. Nevertheless there ought to = be a way to explain the kind of attitude that will be thought highly of- = so that when called upon all players might have the opportunity to = exemplify it. I am thinking that such a place would be an appendix. I am = also thinking that it will take a clear view of what bridge is to get it = right. regards roger pewick ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Schoderb@aol.com=20 To: usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? In a message dated 7/26/01 6:34:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk writes:=20 North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting the = director to=20 give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead.=20 Exactly my point. I can't believe any reasonable player would call = 7NT or=20 any other way-out call without knowing that there had been a previous = call in=20 his seat. That is why I think that Law 16B could be applied as a basis = for=20 action with minimal stretching. I agree that he can call as he likes, = but =20 what he likes can't be based on prior knowledge. =20 Kojak=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Declarer calls for dummy’s card OOT. Are we to feel ill will = toward the LHO=20 that wants to enforce the mandatory play of the card? Many do. But there = is a=20 vast difference between a player seeking redress for an opponent’s = infraction=20 and one that seeks to extract an ‘unearned’ advantage by = gambling. That is what=20 is known as sharp practice. At the poker table it is called angle = shooting.

In this thread the gambling 7NT is rooted in the attitude and = character of=20 the player when combined with necessity meeting opportunity. At the = table it=20 very well might occur to me that I could gamble 7NT but it would never = occur to=20 me to actually do it.

But what of the player who does? I do not believe that TFLB suggests = in any=20 way that doing so is an infraction and I dread the consequences of = twisting the=20 FLB to make it an infraction. Nevertheless there ought to be a way to = explain=20 the kind of attitude that will be thought highly of- so that when called = upon=20 all players might have the opportunity to exemplify it. I am thinking = that such=20 a place would be an appendix. I am also thinking that it will take a = clear view=20 of what bridge is to get it right.

regards

roger pewick

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Schoderb@aol.com=20
To: usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk = ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 = 8:37=20 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for = an=20 AAS....?

In a = message dated=20 7/26/01 6:34:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
usenet@wrightnet.demon.co.uk= =20 writes:

North duly passes again and then East bids 7NT expecting = the=20 director to
give him 60% but just gets a wry smile instead.=20
Exactly my point.  I can't believe any reasonable player = would=20 call 7NT or
any other way-out call without knowing that there had = been a=20 previous call in
his seat. That is why I think that Law 16B could = be=20 applied as a basis for
action with minimal stretching.  I = agree that=20 he can call as he likes, but   
what he likes can't be = based on=20 prior knowledge. 
 
Kojak
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C115DB.B93BA700-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 27 06:22:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QKLEH27965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 06:21:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6QKL8t27961 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 06:21:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-72-159.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.72.159] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15PrZr-000Jb0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:17:47 +0100 Message-ID: <006401c11610$540e5dc0$9f487bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 21:17:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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, July 25, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 9:24 AM +0200 7/25/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >So this is the most interesting part of the question. > If we only read L82C this seems to be the right > >approach. But given the fact that one paircouldn't > >get more than average-minus and knowing that a > >TD is allowed to use more than one law when solving > >an irregularity my decision would have been A+/A-. > > Is this fact a fact, in fact? :-) > > Law 25B says the pair can get only avg- *if the > player changes his call*. Since this player never > had the option explained to him, perhaps he > might have decided *not* to change the call -- and > in that case, his side is not limited to avg-, as > I read 25B2(b)(1). > +=+ I think the issue runs rather more deeply than that. Law 25B specifies that the 'offending side' gets no more than 40%. Law 82C specifies that for the purpose of score adjustment in the case there is no offending side. Being required to award an adjusted score under 82C it appears the Director should be awarding an assigned adjusted score or scores. With both sides non-offending, he should award to each side its "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". ~ 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 Jul 27 08:49:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6QMlue28314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:47:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6QMlot28310 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:47:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-007.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.199]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA76407 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:44:54 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1162D.07D19680.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:45:19 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: +=+ I think the issue runs rather more deeply than that. Law 25B specifies that the 'offending side' gets no more than 40%. Law 82C specifies that for the purpose of score adjustment in the case there is no offending side. Being required to award an adjusted score under 82C it appears the Director should be awarding an assigned adjusted score or scores. With both sides non-offending, he should award to each side its "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I thought I read somwhere that the 'irregularity' refered to here was the TD error. Correct or not? 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 Fri Jul 27 17:40:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6R7ccb13389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:38:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6R7cVt13385 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:38:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA02615; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:35:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 27 09:34:19 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6F5XNV61Q000762@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:50 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:35:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:34:48 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8CA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan Endicott "Every public action which is not customary, > either is wrong or, if it is right, is a dangerous > precedent. It follows that nothing should ever > be done for the first time. [F.M. Cornford] We were talking about a call made without noticing a previous call and a wrong decision made by the TD, who should have applied 25B > > > > At 9:24 AM +0200 7/25/01, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >So this is the most interesting part of the question. > > If we only read L82C this seems to be the right > > >approach. But given the fact that one paircouldn't > > >get more than average-minus and knowing that a > > >TD is allowed to use more than one law when solving > > >an irregularity my decision would have been A+/A-. > >Ed Reppert said: > > Is this fact a fact, in fact? :-) > > > > Law 25B says the pair can get only avg- *if the > > player changes his call*. Since this player never > > had the option explained to him, perhaps he > > might have decided *not* to change the call -- and > > in that case, his side is not limited to avg-, as > > I read 25B2(b)(1). According to the facts as given the score then had been -1000 or something. But in theory you are right: we don't know what would have happened had the TD done his job better. So estimation has to be done. Mine resulted in average-minus. > > > +=+ I think the issue runs rather more deeply > than that. Law 25B specifies that the 'offending > side' gets no more than 40%. Law 82C specifies > that for the purpose of score adjustment in the > case there is no offending side. Being required to > award an adjusted score under 82C it appears > the Director should be awarding an assigned > adjusted score or scores. You invented another word within a lawtext as given: 'assigned'. That is not what my lawbook says. Neither are we doing this in my country. Of course we hardly ever need this law, but if it happens that a TD makes a wrong ruling we gladly give artificial adjusted scores, if reconstruction appears too difficult. But when the offending side should get too much with 60% we for sure try to find an assigned adjusted score for equity reasons. You do not have a secret agenda which brings you to fill at least two afternoon sessions of the WBFLC in Bali, do you? ton With both sides > non-offending, he should award to each side its > "most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 27 17:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6R7ieX13410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:44:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6R7iYt13406 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:44:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-69-99.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.69.99] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Q2Fn-000HRy-00; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:41:48 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c1166f$d14dc3c0$63457bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1162D.07D19680.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:31:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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: Thursday, July 26, 2001 11:45 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I think the issue runs rather more deeply > than that. Law 25B specifies that the 'offending > side' gets no more than 40%. Law 82C specifies > that for the purpose of score adjustment in the > case there is no offending side. Being required to > award an adjusted score under 82C it appears > the Director should be awarding an assigned > adjusted score or scores. With both sides > non-offending, he should award to each side its > "most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > I thought I read somwhere that the 'irregularity' > refered to here was the TD error. > Correct or not? > +=+ My quoted words are from Law 12C2. That has nothing to do with Director error and is a general statement. Since 25B refers to 'offender' there must have been an irregularity, whether you also consider Director error an irregularity for the purpose or not. Either way, the answer to 'Has there been an irregularity?' is patently 'yes'. The question can be raised whether a result has been obtained; in that connection I am simply giving the English of the law its plain natural unqualified meaning; indeed in both respects (and others) I am reluctant to start loading the meanings of words with qualifications not present in the text. ~ 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 Jul 27 22:49:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RClZg23028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:47:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RClQt23018 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:47:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-88-140.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.88.140] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Q6yt-000OUY-00; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:44:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c11699$f3b4bc00$8c58063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:50:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: 26 July 2001 14:37 Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > In a message dated 7/26/01 4:16:27 AM > Eastern Daylight Time, > cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > > > The > > whole question is far too complicated for > > the kind of band-aid solutions that have been > > floating around. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Certainly true, and includes ALL opinions that > have been offered, including the most simplistic > ones like do nothing but apply 15C. BLML is a > discussion group I thought was organized for > just such arguments to be proposed. Since no > official position has been, or should be, stated > it remains for the various LCs to address the > topic if they so desire. Ton might wish to make > this an agenda item for the WBFLC. > +=+ Dear Kojak, Ton has suggested that I may have a 'secret agenda' for Bali. If I have an agenda it is not merely for Bali and it is certainly not secret. I seek to obtain recognition for a principle that bridge laws should be understood, wherever possible, in the terms of the words in which they are promulgated by the WBF. This is, if you will, a 'simplistic' approach allowing of no adulteration of the law by feelings generated by the circumstances of an incident. I allow that the laws are largely written in 'a precarious language' and that sometimes you need to understand the effects of 'the merest shadow lines', but you, ton and I, especially, have a duty to read the words, understand what they say, and reveal it. To be twisting and turning to make an action unlawful because we feel it ought to be, is no way for us to behave; if we think that the action should not be allowed, the answer is to show beyond reasonable doubt that the law actually says what we want it to say or to do something to improve the law. In the meantime Directors and ACs should be doing what the law tells them to do, simplistically. Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 27 22:49:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RClb923029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:47:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RClUt23023 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-88-140.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.88.140] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Q6yw-000OUY-00; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:44:43 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c11699$f5bd0f20$8c58063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8CA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:42:30 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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' ; Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 27 July 2001 08:34 Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > > > > > Grattan Endicott > "Every public action which is not customary, > > either is wrong or, if it is right, is a dangerous > > precedent. It follows that nothing should ever > > be done for the first time. [F.M. Cornford] > > We were talking about a call made without > noticing a previous call and a wrong decision > made by the TD, who should have applied 25B > -------------- \x/ ---------------- > > You invented another word within a lawtext as given: > 'assigned'. That is not what my lawbook says. > +=+ You accuse me wrongly. Law 82C says 'an adjusted score'; it leaves the nature of that adjusted score to be defined. It is either 'artificial' or 'assigned' depending on the answers to two questions: Has there been an irregularity? Has a result been obtained? In my view, in the case in question, the straight answer to each of these questions is 'yes'. I want the law to be read in English just as it is written, whenever possible. So I have expressed the view that we must refer to 12C2, not 12C1. That is my view. As for what happens in The Netherlands, that is a matter for the Dutch. I am only concerned with the understanding of the law in its official text: I do not want people to start writing into that law, notionally, words that are not there. For example, 82C says nothing about ignoring the fact that a result has been obtained following the incorrect ruling, nor does it say "award each side 60% (see Laws 12C1 and 88)". It left open the kind of adjusted score since it seemed possible the board might not always proceed as far as a result. Incidental and unimportant (except perhaps for the reduction of my self-esteem) is the knowledge that I drafted the wording of 82C for Edgar following our discussion of a need to provide for occasions when Directors give wrong rulings - previously it seemed all Directors' rulings were to be deemed correct :-) - but it was not difficult to convince Edgar this should be changed. No doubt I should have done a better job in the execution, but there you go, sadly my mind was diverted to the task of removing an aura of infallibility that I would wish not to allow, neither to myself nor to anyone else. ~ 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 Jul 28 01:34:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RFOr923339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 01:24:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RFOlt23335 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 01:24:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portmp064.worldcom.ch [212.74.135.64]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA08003 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:21:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010727172223.0085d2e0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 17:22:23 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: [BLML] Tenerife Appeals online Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tenerife Appeals are online at: http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appealse.html Yvan. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 02:28:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RGQOC26576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:26:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RGQHt26563 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:26:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA01376; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:47:01 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jul 27 15:45:21 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6FIWWSTAG0007PB@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:46:04 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:46:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:46:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List , "Kooijman, A." Cc: Grattan Endicott Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8CE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "Ours is a precarious language in which > the merest shadow line often separates > affirmation from negation, sense from > nonsense, and one sex from the other." > (James Thurber) > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + Yes, and when you write: 'being required to award an adjusted score under 82C it appears the Director should be awarding an assigned adjusted score or scores.',even that shadow line seemed to have disappeared. So we agree that the TD under 82C is allowed to award an artificial adjusted score. Once more we talk about interpretation then. And the common practise, not just in the Netherlands, but may be not in England, is to interpret 12A2 in such a way that irregularities might result in the play of a board which we do not consider to be 'normal play'. I agree with you that Kaplan should not have deemed TD's not to make mistakes, but considering this to be normal is the other end. Which means that even after a score has been obtained it is possible to give an adjusted score. This asks for the interpretation of L 12C1 so that not all scores are considered to be real results. I agree this to be questionable, but fact is that TD's all over the world are applying these laws in such a way. And fact is that L 12A2 describes when an artificial score may be given, so 12C1 elaborates on that, in stead of giving a new definition (I think). I predict that you don't agree with this approach. In which case Bali will serve us. Let us not forget to mention the disadvantage of this approach, which is that TD's too often give artificial scores. ton -------------- \x/ ---------------- > > > > You invented another word within a lawtext as given: > > 'assigned'. That is not what my lawbook says. > > > +=+ You accuse me wrongly. Law 82C says 'an adjusted > score'; it leaves the nature of that adjusted score to be > defined. It is either 'artificial' or 'assigned' depending > on the answers to two questions: Has there been an > irregularity? Has a result been obtained? In my view, in > the case in question, the straight answer to each of these > questions is 'yes'. I want the law to be read in English just > as it is written, whenever possible. So I have expressed > the view that we must refer to 12C2, not 12C1. > That is my view. > As for what happens in The Netherlands, that is a > matter for the Dutch. I am only concerned with the > understanding of the law in its official text: I do not want > people to start writing into that law, notionally, words that > are not there. For example, 82C says nothing about > ignoring the fact that a result has been obtained following > the incorrect ruling, nor does it say "award each side > 60% (see Laws 12C1 and 88)". It left open the kind > of adjusted score since it seemed possible the board > might not always proceed as far as a result. > Incidental and unimportant (except perhaps for the > reduction of my self-esteem) is the knowledge that I > drafted the wording of 82C for Edgar following our > discussion of a need to provide for occasions when > Directors give wrong rulings - previously it seemed all > Directors' rulings were to be deemed correct :-) - but > it was not difficult to convince Edgar this should be > changed. No doubt I should have done a better job in > the execution, but there you go, sadly my mind was > diverted to the task of removing an aura of infallibility > that I would wish not to allow, neither to myself nor to > anyone else. ~ 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 Jul 28 02:35:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RGYMY27816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:34:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m01.mx.aol.com (imo-m01.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RGYGt27799 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id s.d9.17f301c3 (4069); Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:29:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:29:52 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: gester@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: cyaxares@lineone.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d9.17f301c3.2892f100_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_d9.17f301c3.2892f100_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/27/01 8:48:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gester@lineone.net writes: > +=+ Dear Kojak, > Ton has suggested that I may have a 'secret > agenda' for Bali. If I have an agenda it is not merely > It appears possible you have taken Ton's word "agenda" out of context. Could he have meant a "list of items of business to be brought before a meeting" (Webster's Unabridged)? As the Chair to the Secretary I would think so. My dictionary also has a definition of "things to be done" which more closely fits your use of the word for your further expositions. Funny, isn't it how context can be so important? Were you to accept the first definition it would be a simple question as to the length of the list; were you to assume the second one it includes years of striving and hard work. I seek to obtain recognition for a principle that bridge laws should be understood, wherever possible, in the terms of the words in which they are promulgated by the WBF . And that is what everyone wants. When our understanding differs from the intent of the WBFLC (or other LCs as appropriate), we want to be educated. And when the Law tells us to interpret, we intend to do so. This is, if you will, a 'simplistic' approach allowing of no adulteration of the law by feelings generated by the circumstances of an incident. I allow that the laws are largely written in 'a precarious language' and that sometimes you need > to understand the effects of 'the merest shadow > lines', but you, ton and I, especially, have a duty to > At the risk of being repetitous, context and intent are of great importance in "what they say" and "the merest shadow lines." Using buzz words like "adulteration" in place of -- interpretation, "feelings generated" in place of --held opinions, and "you(sic) need to understand" in place of the indefinite -- 'one' needs to understand, is an interesting style that nicely relegates those addressed to an inferior plane, no? > reveal it. To be twisting and turning to make an > action unlawful because we feel it ought to be, is > "Twisting and turning" (here we go again) as a behavior is an opinion, perhaps shared by others. I like to think of it as honest attempts to interpret the Laws in the context and intent of their stated purpose (read Scope of the Laws, please), and from a position of years of experience in their application. if we think that the action > should not be allowed, the answer is to show beyond > reasonable doubt that the law actually says what we > > In the meantime Directors and ACs should be > doing what the law tells them to do, > > Oh we do, we do, to the best of our abilities. Of course I can only speak > for the myself and TDs I supervise. As the Law tells us to, we interpret > (81C5) and sometimes we even make mistakes in doing so. When that happens > we have the national authorities and LCs to correct us, not the ACs on > simplistically. That too. > Regards, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Regards, --part1_d9.17f301c3.2892f100_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/27/01 8:48:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gester@lineone.net writes:


+=+  Dear Kojak,
       Ton has suggested that I may have a 'secret
agenda' for Bali. If I have an agenda it is not merely
for Bali and it is certainly not secret.


It appears possible you have taken Ton's word "agenda" out of context. Could
he have meant  a "list of items of business to be brought before a meeting"
(Webster's Unabridged)? As the Chair to the Secretary I would think so. My
dictionary also has a definition of "things to be done" which more closely
fits your use of the word for your further expositions.

Funny, isn't it how context can be so important?

Were you to accept the first definition it would be a simple question as to
the length of the list; were you to assume the second one it includes years
of striving and hard work.

I seek to obtain
recognition for a principle that bridge laws should
be understood, wherever possible, in the terms of
the words in which they are promulgated by the
WBF
.
And that is what everyone wants.  When our understanding differs from the
intent of the WBFLC (or other LCs as appropriate), we want to be educated.
And when the Law tells us to interpret, we intend to do so.

This is, if you will, a 'simplistic' approach
allowing of no adulteration of the law by feelings
generated by the circumstances of an incident. I
allow that the laws are largely written in 'a
precarious language' and that sometimes you need

to understand the effects of 'the merest shadow
lines', but you, ton and I, especially, have a duty to
read the words, understand what they say, and


At the risk of being repetitous, context and intent are of great importance
in "what they say" and "the merest shadow lines." Using  buzz words like
"adulteration" in place of -- interpretation,  "feelings generated" in place
of --held opinions, and "you(sic) need to understand"  in place of the
indefinite -- 'one' needs to understand, is an interesting style that nicely
relegates those addressed to an inferior plane, no?

reveal it. To be twisting and turning to make an
action unlawful because we feel it ought to be, is
no way for us to behave;


"Twisting and turning" (here we go again) as a behavior is an opinion,
perhaps shared by others. I like to think of it as honest attempts to
interpret the Laws in the context and intent of their stated purpose (read
Scope of the Laws, please), and from a position of  years of experience in
their application.

if we think that the action
should not be allowed, the answer is to show beyond
reasonable doubt that the law actually says what we
want it to say or to do something to improve the law.

     In the meantime Directors and ACs should be
doing what the law tells them to do,

Oh we do, we do, to the best of our abilities. Of course I can only speak
for the myself and TDs I supervise. As the Law tells us to, we interpret
(81C5) and sometimes we even make mistakes in doing so.  When that happens
we have the national authorities and LCs to correct us, not the ACs  on
points of Law.
simplistically.

That too.


    Regards,                                   ~ Grattan ~  +=+

Regards,  Kojak






 --part1_d9.17f301c3.2892f100_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 02:57:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RGtnU29932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:55:49 +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 f6RGtgt29928 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 02:55:43 +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 MAA16539 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:52:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA05756 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:52:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107271652.MAA05756@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Tenerife 7 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here's one that surprised me. You are in second seat, both vul., IMP teams, and hold 76 AQT85 AQ72 K2. You open 1H, natural. LHO bids 3C alerted and (on request, behind screens) explained as showing spades and diamonds, preemptive. Partner bids 4H, natural but limited by the failure to bid 3S or 4D. RHO bids 4S. Your call? Is it close? (Pass probably isn't forcing, although the writeup does not say.) After you have decided, read the appeal at http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 03:43:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RHfJC00094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:41:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6RHfDt00090 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:41:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f6RHcQY07726 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:38:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200107271738.f6RHcQY07726@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:38:25 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200107271652.MAA05756@cfa183.harvard.edu> from "Steve Willner" at Jul 27, 2001 12:52:55 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 Steve Willner writes: > > Here's one that surprised me. > > You are in second seat, both vul., IMP teams, and hold > 76 AQT85 AQ72 K2. You open 1H, natural. LHO bids 3C alerted and (on > request, behind screens) explained as showing spades and diamonds, > preemptive. Partner bids 4H, natural but limited by the failure to bid > 3S or 4D. RHO bids 4S. > > Your call? I'd pass. > Is it close? Not to me. Though I wouldn't be at all surprised to be outvoted. I particularly don't like the diamond call. > (Pass probably isn't forcing, although the > writeup does not say.) > > After you have decided, read the appeal at > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm I agree with the AC ruling. I certainly don't buy the argument that North had been damaged. South certainly wasn't. He knows that either somebody's pulled the cards from the wrong board or that East forgot his agreements. I see what concerns you. That East only realized that something went wrong when asked by the director what 3C meant. The writeup is garbled there and I'm unclear whether this is accurate. What's the actual timing of the director call? I can't see the basis of a call before the end of the hand. -- 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 Jul 28 04:46:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RIikx04516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 04:44:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RIibt04494 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 04:44:38 +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 KAA20850 for ; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:42:49 -0800 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:41:46 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 In-Reply-To: <200107271652.MAA05756@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One more opinion from the peanut gallery: On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > You are in second seat, both vul., IMP teams, and hold > 76 AQT85 AQ72 K2. You open 1H, natural. LHO bids 3C alerted and (on > request, behind screens) explained as showing spades and diamonds, > preemptive. Partner bids 4H, natural but limited by the failure to bid > 3S or 4D. RHO bids 4S. > > Your call? Is it close? (Pass probably isn't forcing, although the > writeup does not say.) A nonforcing pass seems clear to me. Double is a distant second, but I don't really have anything extra defensively with the DQ dead and no hope of a second heart trick. If 3C is really natural, double is closer, but still but no means a standout. Now the DQ might be working and instead the CK isnt. So, if anything, the MI made it *easier*, not harder, for North to double. I have a 1H opening, neither more nor less, and partner who made the loosely defined preempt, not me, is the one who has a clue whether to defend or bid on. > After you have decided, read the appeal at > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm Hmmm, not quite what I was expecting to find! I agree with letting the result stand and with keeping the deposit. I find it a shaky proposition that North could have doubled, and find 4H and 5H to both be incredibly bad calls from South. 4H might have been forced on them by their system; but with at least 4 ways to raise hearts I am surprised none of them shows normal limit-raise-ish values, and that South is eager to preempt with 3 (supposedly) well-placed cards and 4 bad trump. 5H is terrible! He's been warned the SK is dead, his trumps are still awful, and after 4S has been doubled for penalty surely NOW pass is forcing... people don't double if they think there's only one contract they can beat. I am surprised btw that a director didn't get involved over the 1NT bid which was "though over for some time" before being changed. It'd be VERY difficult for North to convince me this was a mispull and not a change of mind. Bet he's sorry now that he didn't, seeing how much easier it is to stop in 4H with or without a 3C overcall and to defend 5Cx if he'd left 1NT down. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 05:30:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RJSTQ08653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 05:28:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6RJSMt08635 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 05:28:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA09415; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:25:34 -0700 Message-Id: <200107271925.MAA09415@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:52:55 EDT." <200107271652.MAA05756@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:25:34 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Here's one that surprised me. > > You are in second seat, both vul., IMP teams, and hold > 76 AQT85 AQ72 K2. You open 1H, natural. LHO bids 3C alerted and (on > request, behind screens) explained as showing spades and diamonds, > preemptive. Partner bids 4H, natural but limited by the failure to bid > 3S or 4D. RHO bids 4S. > > Your call? Is it close? (Pass probably isn't forcing, although the > writeup does not say.) Pass and plan to lead a spade. This is the sort of situation where I've gotten good results by taking out trumps and killing their ability to ruff out their second suit, thus setting up some tricks in that suit for myself. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 07:08:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RL5ax24517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:05:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RL5Qt24483 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:05:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-60-36.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.60.36] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QEkn-000L1e-00; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:02:38 +0100 Message-ID: <007501c116df$b1cffac0$243c7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8CE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:01:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Bridge Laws Discussion List ; Kooijman, A. Cc: Grattan Endicott Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 2:46 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > > > Grattan Endicott > ================================= > > "Ours is a precarious language in which > > the merest shadow line often separates > > affirmation from negation, sense from > > nonsense, and one sex from the other." > > (James Thurber) > > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > > Yes, and when you write: 'being required to award an > adjusted score under 82C it appears the Director > should be awarding an assigned adjusted score > or scores.',even that shadow line seemed to have > disappeared. So we agree that the TD under 82C > is allowed to award an artificial adjusted score. > +=+ What I have argued is that whether such an adjusted score is to be artificial or assigned depends on whether a result has been obtained. I have based this upon the conditions in 12C1 - "When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained..." and 12C2 - "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity...". These are preconditions for the award of an adjusted score under 12C1 or 12C2 respectively.+=+ > > Once more we talk about interpretation then. And the > common practise, not just in the Netherlands, but may > be not in England, is to interpret 12A2 in such a way > that irregularities might result in the play of a board > which we do not consider to be 'normal play'. I agree > with you that Kaplan should not have deemed TD's not > to make mistakes, but considering this to be normal is > the other end. Which means that even after a score > has been obtained it is possible to give an adjusted score. > This asks for the interpretation of L 12C1 so that not all > scores are considered to be real results. I agree this to > be questionable, but fact is that TD's all over the world > are applying these laws in such a way. And fact is that > L 12A2 describes when an artificial score may be given, > so 12C1 elaborates on that, in stead of giving a new > definition (I think). > +=+ I would have no difficulty with a WBFLC ruling that following a Director's error no result can be considered to have been obtained by normal play of the board, so that Laws 12A2 and 88 apply when awarding an adjusted score under Law 82C. This would bypass 12C. No such WBFLC decision has been handed down to now, although you seem to imply that many Directors have made up their own minds as to the intention. (As I have already said, I am always ready to publicize and promote a WBFLC decision. My desire is to nourish and protect the law, and the law is what the WBFLC says it is where we are not left just to read and follow the text.) +=+ > > I predict that you don't agree with this approach. In > which case Bali will serve us. Let us not forget to mention > the disadvantage of this approach, which is that TD's too > often give artificial scores. > +=+ I see no reason to oppose it; however it needs to be done in Bali. We need quotable authority for any determination of the law that is not immediately apparent from reading the text .+=+ ~ 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 Jul 28 07:08:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6RL5Yx24501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:05:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6RL5Nt24477 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-60-36.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.60.36] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QEkk-000L1e-00; Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:02:35 +0100 Message-ID: <007401c116df$b0032a00$243c7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 21:53:42 +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: ; Cc: Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > > > Oh we do, we do, to the best of our abilities. > > Of course I can only speak for the myself and > > TDs I supervise. As the Law tells us to, we interpret > > (81C5) and sometimes we even make mistakes in > > doing so. When that happens we have the national > > authorities and LCs to correct us, not the ACs > > +=+ In WBF tournaments matters of Law are appealable to the WBFLC. In EBL tournaments the Tournament Appeals Committee is defined as 'also the national authority for the purposes of Law 93C'. +=+ ~ G ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 17:54:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6S7npC27389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:49:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6S7nat27373 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-125-200.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.125.200] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QOo8-000AOL-00; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:46:44 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c11739$ad6c1180$c87d01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200107271738.f6RHcQY07726@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:19:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 . > > I see what concerns you. That East only > realized that something went wrong when > asked by the director what 3C meant. > > The writeup is garbled there and I'm > unclear whether this is accurate. What's the > actual timing of the director call? I can't see > the basis of a call before the end of the hand. > +=+ There is a typo; the fourth line of the Facts has words missing - it should say South called the Director after the bid of five clubs. Note also that the 5H bid was made by S whilst the Director was still obtaining the facts. (That did nothing to encourage the sympathy of the AC.) East had bid 5C whilst still oblivious to what his earlier bid had done. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 17:54:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6S7nqq27392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:49:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6S7nat27372 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-125-200.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.125.200] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QOoB-000AOL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:46:47 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c11739$af6b3ce0$c87d01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200107271925.MAA09415@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:45:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > Steve Willner wrote: > > > Here's one that surprised me. > > +=+ The TAC was surprised and disappointed by the number of appeals. Initially, perhaps optimistically, it was thought that about a third or less of the actual number could be expected. Discussions took place in the Press Conference and, quite independently, in the TAC, as to whether to switch to forfeits of Victory Points rather than cash (8000 ptas, just over US$ 41). No conclusion was reached; some thought that criticisms of AC decisions would become even more aggressive. The TAC wishes to invite wider opinion on the question. It might be 0.5 VP, I recall no-one suggesting more than 1VP. ~ 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 Jul 28 17:54:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6S7npL27391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:49:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6S7nat27371 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 17:49:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-125-200.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.125.200] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QOo9-000AOL-00; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:46:46 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c11739$ae6f77c0$c87d01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gordon Bower" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:26:42 +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 Mailing List Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 7 > > I am surprised btw that a director didn't get > involved over the 1NT bid which was "thought > over for some time" > +=+ LHO just accepted the call. No Director was summoned. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 18:05:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6S81RI27722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:01:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6S81Lt27716 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:01:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-140.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.140] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QOzY-000CmT-00; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:58:32 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01c1173b$536ac4e0$c87d01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "olivier beauvillain" Cc: Subject: [BLML] Is your PC infected? Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:59:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 19:34:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.17.45]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010728093143.DBEZ15984.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:31:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c11748$33862cc0$2d11ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <005b01c1173b$536ac4e0$c87d01d5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is your PC infected? Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:32:19 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I did the same Grattan - it was 127k. I have asked Olivier to send it again if it really was intended - I thought it might have had something to do with Tabiano. Problem is that I am now so so curious. lol Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "olivier beauvillain" Cc: Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:59 AM Subject: [BLML] Is your PC infected? > > Grattan Endicott "Every public action which is not customary, > either is wrong or, if it is right, is a dangerous > precedent. It follows that nothing should ever > be done for the first time. [F.M. Cornford] > + + + + > + > > Hi Olivier! I have just deleted a message from > you with an attachment, for fear that your > machine has caught the virus that is going > round. I did not open the attachment. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 21:11:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6SB8Dq15336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:08:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6SB85t15329 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:08:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id s.41.ec9b818 (3984); Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <41.ec9b818.2893f65d@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:05:01 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? To: cyaxares@lineone.net, gester@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_41.ec9b818.2893f65d_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_41.ec9b818.2893f65d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/27/01 5:06:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: ; > Cc: > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:29 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....? > > > > > > > > Oh we do, we do, to the best of our abilities. > > > Of course I can only speak for the myself and > > > TDs I supervise. As the Law tells us to, we interpret > > > (81C5) and sometimes we even make mistakes in > > > doing so. When that happens we have the national > > > authorities and LCs to correct us, not the ACs > > > > +=+ In WBF tournaments matters of Law are > appealable to the WBFLC. In EBL tournaments > the Tournament Appeals Committee is defined > as 'also the national authority for the purposes > of Law 93C'. +=+ ~ G ~ > > > SoO? Are you of the opinion that I needed to be reminded of this, or did not know this? --part1_41.ec9b818.2893f65d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/27/01 5:06:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyaxares@lineone.net writes:





----- Original Message -----
From: <Schoderb@aol.com>
To: <gester@lineone.net>; <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
Cc: <cyaxares@lineone.net>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Opting for an AAS....?


> >
> > Oh we do, we do, to the best of our abilities.
> > Of course I can only speak for the myself and
> > TDs I supervise. As the Law tells us to, we interpret
> > (81C5) and sometimes we even make mistakes in
> > doing so.  When that happens we have the national
> > authorities and LCs to correct us, not the ACs
> >
+=+ In WBF tournaments matters of Law are
appealable to the WBFLC. In EBL tournaments
the Tournament Appeals Committee is defined
as 'also the national authority for the purposes
of Law 93C'.  +=+   ~ G ~





SoO?  Are you of the opinion that I needed to be reminded of this, or did not
know this?   --part1_41.ec9b818.2893f65d_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 28 21:11:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6SB8An15334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:08:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6SB82t15324 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:08:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id s.a7.11644a04 (3984); Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:04:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:04:59 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid To: cyaxares@lineone.net, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, gester@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a7.11644a04.2893f65b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_a7.11644a04.2893f65b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/27/01 5:07:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > > Yes, and when you write: 'being required to award an > > adjusted score under 82C it appears the Director > > should be awarding an assigned adjusted score > > or scores.',even that shadow line seemed to have > > disappeared. So we agree that the TD under 82C > > is allowed to award an artificial adjusted score. > > > +=+ What I have argued is that whether such an adjusted > score is to be artificial or assigned depends on whether > a result has been obtained. I have based this upon the > conditions in 12C1 - "When, owing to an irregularity, no > result can be obtained..." and 12C2 - "When the Director > awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result > actually obtained after an irregularity...". These are > preconditions for the award of an adjusted score under > > > common practise, not just in the Netherlands, but may > > be not in England, is to interpret 12A2 in such a way > > that irregularities might result in the play of a board > > which we do not consider to be 'normal play'. I agree > > with you that Kaplan should not have deemed TD's not > > to make mistakes, but considering this to be normal is > > the other end. Which means that even after a score > > has been obtained it is possible to give an adjusted score. > > This asks for the interpretation of L 12C1 so that not all > > scores are considered to be real results. I agree this to > > be questionable, but fact is that TD's all over the world > > are applying these laws in such a way. And fact is that > > L 12A2 describes when an artificial score may be given, > > so 12C1 elaborates on that, in stead of giving a new > > definition (I think). > > > +=+ I would have no difficulty with a WBFLC ruling that > following a Director's error no result can be considered > to have been obtained by normal play of the board, so > that Laws 12A2 and 88 apply when awarding an adjusted > score under Law 82C. This would bypass 12C. No such > WBFLC decision has been handed down to now, although > you seem to imply that many Directors have made up > their own minds as to the intention. (As I have already > said, I am always ready to publicize and promote a > WBFLC decision. My desire is to nourish and protect > the law, and the law is what the WBFLC says it is where > we are not left just to read and follow the text.) WBF ruling? The WBFLC doesn't make rulings it issues interpretations. TDs make rulings. Your desire to see that the Law is adhered to is not unique -- we all feel the same way about that . Following the text in your suggested manner is to ingore Law 81C5. We "READ" things differently, and none of us are omnipotent. When WBFLC tells me I'm wrong, I abide by that decision. Until then I follow the Law as I see it, always ready to be challenged by appeal to the WBFLC or the national authority. > > > > I predict that you don't agree with this approach. In > > which case Bali will serve us. Let us not forget to mention > > the disadvantage of this approach, which is that TD's too > > often give artificial scores. > > > +=+ I see no reason to oppose it; however it needs to be > done in Bali. We need quotable authority for any > determination of the law that is not immediately apparent > from reading the text .+=+ ~ Grattan ~ > > Quotable authority exists by the Law requiring a TD to interpret. IF the > WBFLC finds that interpretation wrong, so be it. What is not "immediately > apparent" to you from the text may appear clear to someone else. > > > > > > > --part1_a7.11644a04.2893f65b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/27/01 5:07:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cyaxares@lineone.net writes:


> Yes, and when you write: 'being required to award an
> adjusted score under 82C it appears  the Director
> should be awarding an assigned adjusted score
> or scores.',even that shadow line seemed to have
> disappeared. So we agree that the TD under 82C
> is allowed to award an artificial adjusted score.
>
+=+ What I have argued is that whether such an adjusted
score is to be artificial or assigned depends on whether
a result has been obtained. I have based this upon the
conditions in 12C1 - "When, owing to an irregularity, no
result can be obtained..." and 12C2 - "When the Director
awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result
actually obtained after an irregularity...". These are
preconditions for the award of an adjusted score under
12C1 or 12C2 respectively.+=+

> common practise, not just in the Netherlands, but may
> be not in England, is to interpret 12A2 in such a way
> that irregularities might result in the play of a board
> which we do not consider to be 'normal play'. I agree
> with you that Kaplan should not have deemed TD's not
> to make mistakes, but considering this to be normal is
> the other end. Which means that even after a score
> has been obtained it is possible to give an adjusted score.
> This asks for the interpretation of L 12C1 so that not all
> scores are considered to be real results. I agree this to
> be questionable, but fact is that TD's all over the world
> are applying these laws in such a way. And fact is that
> L 12A2 describes when an artificial score may be given,
> so 12C1 elaborates on that, in stead of giving a new
> definition (I think).
>
+=+ I would have no difficulty with a WBFLC ruling that
following a Director's error no result can be considered
to have been obtained by normal play of the board, so
that Laws 12A2 and 88 apply when awarding an adjusted
score under Law 82C. This would bypass 12C. No such
WBFLC decision has been handed down to now, although
you seem to imply that many Directors have made up
their own minds as to the intention.  (As I have already
said, I am always ready to publicize and promote a
WBFLC decision. My desire is to nourish and protect
the law, and the law is what the WBFLC says it is where
we are not left just to read and follow the text.)  +=+


WBF ruling? The WBFLC doesn't make rulings it issues interpretations.  TDs
make rulings.  Your desire to see that the Law is adhered to is not unique --
we all feel the same way about that . Following the text in your suggested
manner is to ingore Law 81C5. We "READ" things differently, and none of us
are omnipotent. When WBFLC tells me I'm wrong, I abide by that decision.
Until then I follow the Law as  I see it, always ready to be challenged by
appeal to the WBFLC or the national authority.


>
> I predict that you don't agree with this approach. In
> which case Bali will serve us. Let us not forget to mention
> the disadvantage of this approach, which is that TD's too
> often give artificial scores.
>
+=+ I see no reason to oppose it; however it needs to be
done in Bali. We need quotable authority for any
determination of the law that is not immediately apparent
from reading the text .+=+                       ~ Grattan ~

Quotable authority exists by the Law requiring a TD to interpret. IF the
WBFLC finds that interpretation wrong, so be it. What is not "immediately
apparent" to you from the text may appear clear to someone else.
















--part1_a7.11644a04.2893f65b_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 29 00:01:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6SDwJb23342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:58:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6SDwCt23337 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 23:58:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from kantoor.ripe.net (kantoor.ripe.net [193.0.1.98]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f6SDtJs12704; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:55:19 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA29371; Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:55:19 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 15:55:19 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Anne Jones cc: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Is your PC infected? In-Reply-To: <001001c11748$33862cc0$2d11ff3e@vnmvhhid> 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, 28 Jul 2001, Anne Jones wrote: > I did the same Grattan - it was 127k. > I have asked Olivier to send it again if it really was intended - I > thought it might have had something to do with Tabiano. > Problem is that I am now so so curious. If the message starts with "Hi, how are you, I'm sending this file in order to have your advice", then DON'T open the attachment. It is a virus. Delete the message. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 29 08:32:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6SMQ8r17909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 08:26:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6SMQ3t17905 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 08:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010728222310.QHLE6576896.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:23:10 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Subject: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:23:10 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010728222310.QHLE6576896.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Declarer is in 6h Dbl. Apparently this contract can be made but not after cA cashed and four rounds of trumps since declarer's trumps are 4-4 and the defenders' trumps are 5-0. At trick 11 declarer discovers that she has 2 cards left and dummy has 4. There was much confusion. Noone had previously noticed that the dummy contained 14 cards. Declarer says she always ("99%") counts her card but could not specifically remember counting her cards. Dummy admitted not counting his cards. The card that was in the incorrect hand was the s6. Now if the board was fouled at this table declarer deserves her bottom and the defenders their top *but* if the board arrived at the table fouled the board needs to be cancelled. How much evidence do you need? Or is there some other solution? There was one additional piece of evidence. This boards was late arriving (slow play at the previous table - but 2 boards a table so this did not cause a delay). However the director was at the table at the previous table. She remembers the s6 being on the table near the dummy's cards but did not see it gathered incorrectly into that hand. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 29 16:53:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6T6msl15373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6T6mkt15365 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:48:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-38-7.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.38.7] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QkKH-0009LU-00; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:45:22 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c117fa$57991e80$07267bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , "Grattan Endicott" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:37:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; ; Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > In a message dated 7/27/01 5:07:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > cyaxares@lineone.net writes: > > > > > Quotable authority exists by the Law > > requiring a TD to interpret. IF the > > WBFLC finds that interpretation wrong, > > so be it. What is not "immediately > > apparent" to you from the text may > > appear clear to someone else. > > +=+ At the risk of boring please allow me to quote in full the guidance given in the 1992 EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. (This was approved by the EBL Laws Committee and authorized by the EBL Executive; the Commentary is the copyright of the European Bridge League. The guidance concerning Law 82 drew upon discussions in the drafting stage.) I quote:- <<<< Law 82: Rectification of Errors of Procedure. 82.1 This Law deals with the Director's particular responsibility for maintaining the progress of the game, and for ironing out smoothly any wrinkles which appear. In doing so he must remain within the provisions of the Laws. 82.2 To this end he is given powers at various points in the Laws to award adjusted scores. In addition this Law specifies his power to require a board to be played later or to be played forthwith. 82.3 In section 82C there is recognition that Directors are human and may err. When the Director realizes that he, or one of his assistants, has erred in a ruling this Law provides that he will thereupon award an adjusted score - treating both sides as non-offending for the purpose. 82.4 Where a result cannot be obtained on the board such a score will be an artificial score (Law 12C1). In this case each side receives 60% subject to Law 88; in knockout teams events he cannot award a swing in IMPs - and will consider whether the circumstances are best served by provision of a substitute board under Law 6D3 (but subject always to Law 86C). The particular difficulty created here by the Director's error will be noted : the Director has created a very real problem for himself and the Administrators. 82.5 Where a result can be (or has been) obtained on the board, the Director awards an assigned adjusted score as between two contestants each of whom is entitled under Law 12C2 to his most favourable result from amongst those that were likely had the irregularity not occurred. 82.6 Law 86B provides for two separately identified scores to be averaged in knockout team play, but in all other circumstances they are not to be balanced one against the other in any way. >>>> Whilst persistence in defending my position seems to be causing some excitement, the fact is that the position I defend was adopted by the European Bridge League, and promulgated to its Directors and NBOs in 1992. Outside of Zone 1, of course, it constituted no more than reading matter. ~ 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 Jul 29 16:53:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6T6mpE15369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:48:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6T6mht15364 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:48:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-38-7.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.38.7] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15QkKF-0009LU-00; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:45:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c117fa$56496d00$07267bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , "Anne Jones" Cc: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is your PC infected? Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:26:13 +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 . > > If the message starts with "Hi, how are you, I'm > sending this file in order to have your advice", > then DON'T open the attachment. It is a > virus. Delete the message. > +=+ I believe that the virus changes the introductory message and that other wording may replace the above. ~ 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 Jul 29 18:27:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6T8N5915565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6T8Mvt15561 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:22:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-118-100-dial-en2.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.118.100] (may be forged)) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6T8K6227446 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 00:20:06 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <3B63C74E.25E76D2F@ptialaska.net> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 00:20:30 -0800 From: Michael Schmahl Organization: poor X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid References: <01C1162D.07D19680.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002801c1166f$d14dc3c0$63457bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan wrote: > > > > +=+ I think the issue runs rather more deeply > > than that. Law 25B specifies that the 'offending > > side' gets no more than 40%. Law 82C specifies > > that for the purpose of score adjustment in the > > case there is no offending side. Being required to > > award an adjusted score under 82C it appears > > the Director should be awarding an assigned > > adjusted score or scores. With both sides > > non-offending, he should award to each side its > > "most favourable result that was likely had the > > irregularity not occurred". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > > I thought I read somwhere that the 'irregularity' > > refered to here was the TD error. > > Correct or not? > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ My quoted words are from Law 12C2. That > has nothing to do with Director error and is a > general statement. Since 25B refers to 'offender' > there must have been an irregularity, whether > you also consider Director error an irregularity > for the purpose or not. Either way, the answer > to 'Has there been an irregularity?' is patently > 'yes'. The question can be raised whether a > result has been obtained; in that connection > I am simply giving the English of the law its > plain natural unqualified meaning; indeed in > both respects (and others) I am reluctant > to start loading the meanings of words with > qualifications not present in the text. I understand that the 'irregularity' is, originally, the director's error. But while applying Law 12C, and determining "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity [director's error] not occurred," we unearth another irregularity, namely the delated or purposeful change of call. I firmly believe that the correct approach is to apply the Law recursively in this case. I can see the amended ruling going along these lines: "Had the TD not ruled incorrectly, the most favorable result likely for Chadwick would have been 2HX-3 for -500, but *average minus at best* (since in this case L25B2(b)(2) would apply), and the most favorable result likely for their opponents would have been to continue on to 4S= for +620. Since the result in the other room was 4S= for +620, Chadwick gets -3 IMPs while the other pair gets 0. Averaging, we arrive at -1.5 IMPs to Chadwick (L86B)." Of course, I don't know anything about the actual hand, so all these numbers are made up, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. I hope, Grattan, you are not suggesting that the language of L82C erases the penalty for the (hypothetical) attempted change of call completely? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Jul 29 22:00:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TBw9M23059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:58:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TBw3t23054 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-63-167.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.63.167] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Qp9d-000L6k-00; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:54:42 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c11825$8ebb9840$a73f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <20010728222310.QHLE6576896.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 08:19:20 +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 5.00.2615.200 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, July 28, 2001 11:23 PM Subject: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? > The card that was in the incorrect hand was the s6. > > Now if the board was fouled at this table declarer > deserves her bottom and the defenders their top *but* > if the board arrived at the table fouled the board needs > to be cancelled. How much evidence do you need? Or > is there some other solution? > +=+ The Director should follow Law 85. If he does not feel he can establish the facts to his satisfaction 85B applies. I would not wish to publish comment here on the Director's judgement of what evidence he needed in this instance but as an AC member I would look to hear from him what he had established and what caused him to incline as he did. Small perceptions sometimes weigh heavily in such circumstances, and there is no doubt more than we have learnt here. ~ 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 Jul 29 22:00:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TBxHd23067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:59:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TBxBt23063 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:59:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-70.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.70]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 59F1336D59; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 13:56:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003a01c11825$a2024980$46b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , , "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:21:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >> > Quotable authority exists by the Law >> > requiring a TD to interpret. IF the >> > WBFLC finds that interpretation wrong, >> > so be it. What is not "immediately >> > apparent" to you from the text may >> > appear clear to someone else. >> > >+=+ At the risk of boring please allow me to >quote in full the guidance given in the 1992 >EBL Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate >Contract Bridge. (This was approved by the >EBL Laws Committee and authorized by >the EBL Executive; the Commentary is the >copyright of the European Bridge League. >The guidance concerning Law 82 drew upon >discussions in the drafting stage.) > >I quote:- ><<<< > Law 82: Rectification of Errors of Procedure. > >82.1 This Law deals with the Director's particular >responsibility for maintaining the progress of the >game, and for ironing out smoothly any wrinkles >which appear. In doing so he must remain within >the provisions of the Laws. > >82.2 To this end he is given powers at various >points in the Laws to award adjusted scores. In >addition this Law specifies his power to require >a board to be played later or to be played forthwith. > >82.3 In section 82C there is recognition that >Directors are human and may err. When the Director >realizes that he, or one of his assistants, has erred >in a ruling this Law provides that he will thereupon >award an adjusted score - treating both sides as >non-offending for the purpose. > >82.4 Where a result cannot be obtained on the >board such a score will be an artificial score (Law >12C1). In this case each side receives 60% subject >to Law 88; in knockout teams events he cannot award >a swing in IMPs - and will consider whether the >circumstances are best served by provision of a >substitute board under Law 6D3 (but subject always >to Law 86C). The particular difficulty created here >by the Director's error will be noted : the Director has >created a very real problem for himself and the >Administrators. > >82.5 Where a result can be (or has been) obtained on >the board, the Director awards an assigned adjusted >score as between two contestants each of whom is >entitled under Law 12C2 to his most favourable result >from amongst those that were likely had the irregularity >not occurred. > >82.6 Law 86B provides for two separately identified >scores to be averaged in knockout team play, but in >all other circumstances they are not to be balanced >one against the other in any way. > > >>>> > > Whilst persistence in defending my position seems >to be causing some excitement, the fact is that the >position I defend was adopted by the European Bridge >League, and promulgated to its Directors and NBOs >in 1992. Outside of Zone 1, of course, it constituted >no more than reading matter. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Could you please explain why this message is posted and what you think to defend with it? And be sure that 'my position' as an answer is not a clarification for me. Looking at the content of this guidance I am interested in the meaning of 82.5: ' where a result can be obtained....' The only construction I am able to imagine is that the TD was asked for a ruling, gives a wrong one after which play continues, discovers his mistake almost immediately and returns to the table. He now tells the players to stop play and tells the players that without this 'stop' instruction the play would have been continued with a bridge result at the end. Conditions fulfilled to give an assigned adjusted score. Is this what it means? Well, that doesn't make sense to me. In that case we can delete artificial adjusted scores. One always can say that had the board been played out, giving all players there 13 cards, a result would have been obtained. Reading this more closely I am surprised with 82.3 where it says that after having erred the TD will assign an adjusted score. 82C tells us that there is a restriction: no rectification being possible to play the board normally. And the guidance might have said that an adjusted score is only needed when the mistake resulted in damage for a side. Which is what should be added to 82C as well. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 29 23:15:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TDD6I23252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 23:13:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TDCxt23247 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 23:13:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010729131002.TOQO26647.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 06:10:02 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010729090102.007e0630@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> X-Sender: david-grabiner@mail.rdc1.md.home.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:01:02 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:23 PM 7/28/01 +0000, Wayne wrote: >At trick 11 declarer discovers that she has 2 cards left and dummy has 4. There was much confusion. >Noone had previously noticed that the dummy contained 14 cards. >Now if the board was fouled at this table declarer deserves her bottom and the defenders their top *but* if the board arrived at the table fouled the board needs to be cancelled. How much evidence do you need? Or is there some other solution? Lacking any evidence one way or the other, I would assume that the board was fouled at the previous table for purposes of awarding an adjusted score. An adjusted score is analogous to a civil ruling, which should be based on a preponderance of the evidence. Since it is more common for a board to be fouled when putting the hands back at the previous table than when taking them out at the current table, I would make that assumption. I would not penalize the previous table for fouling the board without stronger evidence. >There was one additional piece of evidence. This boards was late arriving (slow play at the previous table - but 2 boards a table so this did not cause a delay). However the director was at the table at the previous table. She remembers the s6 being on the table near the dummy's cards but did not see it gathered incorrectly into that hand. > >Wayne Burrows >10 Glen Place >Palmerston North >New Zealand > >0064 6 355 1259 >025 667 1525 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 01:06:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TF4U623450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:04:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail6.mgfairfax.rr.com (fe6.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TF4Ot23446 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:04:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome ([66.61.59.178]) by Mail6.mgfairfax.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:01:33 -0400 Message-ID: <003701c1183f$2ef503a0$b23b3d42@cox.rr.com> Reply-To: "John Kuchenbrod" From: "John Kuchenbrod" To: "BLML" References: <002001c117fa$56496d00$07267bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is your PC infected? Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:00:14 -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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > If the message starts with "Hi, how are you, I'm > > sending this file in order to have your advice", > > then DON'T open the attachment. It is a > > virus. Delete the message. > > > +=+ I believe that the virus changes the > introductory message and that other > wording may replace the above. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Correct. For more info, investigate: http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=TROJ_SIRCAM.A The virus has been downgraded to a moderate risk since most anti-virus packages have been updated to handle it. In general, if your attachment appears to have two extensions, or appears to have an extention when your software normally doesn't show extensions of applications, it's a good idea to stay away from the attachment. Back to lurker mode, John -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 01:48:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TFkwM26860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:46:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TFkpt26835 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:46:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-005.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.197]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA44037; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:43:48 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:44:15 +0100 Message-ID: <01C1184D.B4197440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:44:14 +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 > Grattan wrote: > > +=+ I think the issue runs rather more deeply > than that. Law 25B specifies that the 'offending > side' gets no more than 40%. Law 82C specifies > that for the purpose of score adjustment in the > case there is no offending side. Being required to > award an adjusted score under 82C it appears > the Director should be awarding an assigned > adjusted score or scores. With both sides > non-offending, he should award to each side its > "most favourable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I asked:> > I thought I read somwhere that the 'irregularity' > refered to here was the TD error. > Correct or not? > My question really is: If 82C directs us to 12C2 in this particular case, then what is the irregularity? - the TD error or the attempted change of call? We need to know what the irregularity is if we are to estimate the most favourable result had it not occured. 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 Jul 30 02:32:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TGUrd03206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:30:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TGUlt03202 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:30:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-111.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.111]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6TGRsM11356 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:27:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B63D27F.ABB26586@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:08:15 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? References: <20010728222310.QHLE6576896.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne wrote: > > Hi > > Declarer is in 6h Dbl. > > Apparently this contract can be made but not after cA cashed and four rounds of trumps since declarer's trumps are 4-4 and the defenders' trumps are 5-0. > > At trick 11 declarer discovers that she has 2 cards left and dummy has 4. There was much confusion. > > Noone had previously noticed that the dummy contained 14 cards. > > Declarer says she always ("99%") counts her card but could not specifically remember counting her cards. Dummy admitted not counting his cards. > > The card that was in the incorrect hand was the s6. > > Now if the board was fouled at this table declarer deserves her bottom and the defenders their top *but* if the board arrived at the table fouled the board needs to be cancelled. How much evidence do you need? Or is there some other solution? > > There was one additional piece of evidence. This boards was late arriving (slow play at the previous table - but 2 boards a table so this did not cause a delay). However the director was at the table at the previous table. She remembers the s6 being on the table near the dummy's cards but did not see it gathered incorrectly into that hand. > I think this is just about enough. Consider what you are saying. You are actually saying that declarer, noticing that the contract would fail, puts one of his cards among dummy. That is a cheating accusation. The merest piece of evidence, and the one you suggest is quite strong actually, should be enough to convince the opponents that there is no need for accusations. Av+/Av- seems right. (I know some people would like to give 50%/30% or even less, but I don't believe that we should let the 6HX influence our giving of AAS) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 04:27:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TIPYF05139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 04:25:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TIPSt05135 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 04:25:29 +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 OAA03553 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA09813 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107291822.OAA09813@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Tenerife 7 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I asked: > You are in second seat, both vul., IMP teams, and hold > 76 AQT85 AQ72 K2. You open 1H, natural. LHO bids 3C alerted and (on > request, behind screens) explained as showing spades and diamonds, > preemptive. Partner bids 4H, natural but limited by the failure to bid > 3S or 4D. RHO bids 4S. There may have been some slight confusion. It was LHO's bid that was preemptive. Partner's 4H is bid to make, although he certainly doesn't offer any guarantee. In the actual hand, he had 10 HCP, four hearts, and a side singleton. That's about what I would expect. Thanks to the three people who commented. All passed, considering it a non-problem. I thought double was completely automatic. Shows what I know! Maybe I open lighter than anyone else, but the hand is at least an ace better than what I consider a minimum opening. How can I pass, at least if pass is non-forcing? (If it's forcing, it's perfect.) Oh, well, this is why we always consult before giving a judgment ruling. Maybe that's the real lesson of this hand. As people saw if they looked at the writeup, this was an MI case. The explanation I gave above was the one the player should have had, not the one he actually received. The player with MI passed, but if it's automatic to pass even with correct information, then there's no damage. That's what the AC decided. > After you have decided, read the appeal at > http://home.worldcom.ch/fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 04:56:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TIt5U05162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 04:55:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6TIsxt05158 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 04:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6TIrEa29860 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:53:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:43:02 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." > > Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I found this little piece in Krzysztof Jassem's daily > > > report from Life Master Pairs in Toronto. > > > > > > Day 2: > > > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. > > > > > > Tuszynski Jassem > > > W N E S > > > pass pass 3C ...pass > > > pass pass > > > > > > 975 > > > Q964 > > > KQJ1083 > > > --- > > > QJ1032 864 > > > AJ72 8 > > > 952 A74 > > > 2 AK8763 > > > AK > > > K1053 > > > 6 > > > QJ10954 > > > > > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > > > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > > > When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he > > > would have certainly re-opened with 3D. > > > > > > > So he admits that he has been using UI to determine what to > > bid. > > "certainly would have re-opened" - so there is no LA in his > > mind. > > By the minute of hesitation, South has made certain that > > North knows there is a real hesitation - not just a waiting > > for an alert. > > > > > Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. > > > I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. > > > Do we apply "could have known" here? > > > > > > > I would ask South what he was thinking about. > > Why, if you are going to adjust the score anyway? > > > Then I would > > rule against North-South. > > Amazing, this ! > > What amazes me most is that we seem not to know how to handle this, trying > to find 'could have known' to support a decision. While in my opinion L16 > deals with such a case. Anyone objecting the conclusion that the pass could > have been suggested by the hesitation? Or are you going to say that pass > can't be considered to be a logical alternative? > It's good to know that both Ton and Herman know what "demonstrably suggests" means in L16A. Some seem to think it means "specifically suggests" rather than the obviously intended broader sense of "suggests" (introduces to the mind). Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 30 07:29:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TLRlA15947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:27:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TLRdt15938 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:27:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-67-230.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.67.230] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Qy2q-000A6O-00; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:24:16 +0100 Message-ID: <003b01c11875$206959e0$e643063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , , , "Grattan Endicott" , References: <003a01c11825$a2024980$46b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:37:37 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; ; ; Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 10:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > Reading this more closely I am surprised > with 82.3 where it says that after having erred > the TD will assign an adjusted score. 82C tells > us that there is a restriction: no rectification > being possible to play the board normally. And > the guidance might have said that an adjusted > score is only needed when the mistake resulted > in damage for a side. Which is what should > be added to 82C as well. > > +=+ Ah, yes. All life is full of flaws. It should no doubt have been said that if a result that could be or had been obtained were untainted by the Director's error it should be left stand and the procedure in 82.5 would only apply if a result that had been or could be obtained were affected by the error. Strange, not only did Bent Keith Hansen not pick that up - neither did Edgar when he read it. His main concern was that "if the Director has spoilt the players' game they should be allowed the best results they might have expected to achieve had none of this happened". It was for that reason that he moved us away from my first thought - that the board should be scrubbed. As the book says, no doubt it contains flaws - but, then, it was quite a lot to attempt. . And what did I have in mind when I put this extract from the Commentary in my email? Well, I was getting the feeling that some were minded that I was perhaps pursuing some capricious personal line of my own and so I wanted to show that I was actually urging for the wider stage what had already been accepted by the EBL. ~ 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 Jul 30 07:29:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6TLRnH15949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:27:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6TLRet15940 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:27:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-67-230.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.67.230] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Qy2s-000A6O-00; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:24:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c11875$218e51e0$e643063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Fearghal O'Boyle" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1184D.B4197440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:24:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Grattan Endicott' Cc: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid > > > I asked:> > > I thought I read somwhere that the 'irregularity' > > refered to here was the TD error. > > Correct or not? > > > My question really is: > If 82C directs us to 12C2 in this particular case, > then what is the irregularity? - the TD error or > the attempted change of call? We need to know > what the irregularity is if we are to estimate the > most favourable result had it not occured. > +=+ I do not have a simple red or green answer to the question. Let us take Law 25B: it begins with a statement that "until LHO calls a call may be substituted when Section A does not apply". In this statement 'may be substituted' is usually interpreted to mean that it is permitted, not that it is something to which a reaction is needed if it happens. I think the usual interpretation is justified, although it would be somewhat easier to deal with later parts of 25B if the second were the proper interpretation. This is because the usual interpretation makes it read as though the procedure is authorized, yet when we follow through we find that the substituted call may be "condoned (treated as legal)" or if not accepted various outcomes may ensue in which the player who has changed his call is an "offender", his side is "the offending side", and penalties arise.. From all of this I think we must conclude that a change of call under 25B is certainly an irregularity, and indeed the ensuing text addresses it as though it is an infraction. Then there is the question whether the error made by the Director is an irregularity. We are hampered if a Director who gets something wrong is subsequently berated by an 'authority'. The natural reaction is a defensive closing of ranks and, although recognition that a mistake has occurred should never be accusatory, it does become harder to obtain acceptance that when a Director makes a mistake it constitutes an irregularity since it disturbs the proper course of the deal. So I regard both of these events as being 'irregularities', and since they are conjoined I believe we have to go back to the time on the board when neither of them had occurred. But I did not discuss this aspect with EK and I have not heard comment on it since then. ~ 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 Jul 30 10:19:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6U0Gx926769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:16:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6U0Gqt26765 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:16:53 +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 f6U0F5a02378 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01e101c1188c$7beb70c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] NABC Case 4 (Daily Bulletin July 27) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:13:04 -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 Appeals Case 4 Subject: (Misinformation): Event: Life Master Pairs, First Semifinal Session Toronto 2001 NABC Bd: 23 Marc Umeno Dlr: South S- J 10 9 7 2 Vul: Both H- 8 D- K 10 9 8 4 3 C 5 Daniel Levin Hank Youngerman S- A K Q S- 43 H- 10 7 H- K Q J 5 4 D- Q 6 D- J 7 2 C- A K J 10 6 4 C- 9 3 2 Josh Sher S- 8 6 5 H- A 9 6 3 2 D- A 5 C- Q 8 7 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - - Pass 2C 2NT (1) Pass (2) 3C (3) Pass 3D Dbl 4H 5C All Pass (1) Alerted; explained as clubs or red suits (2) Alerted; values (3) Pass or correct The Facts: 5C went down two, +200 for N/S. The opening lead was the H8. The Director was called at the end of play. The Director determined there had been a mistaken explanation and that the N/S agreement was that 2NT showed two non-touching suits. The Director ruled that the 5C bid broke the connection between the MI and damage (Law 40C, 21B). The table result was allowed to stand. [even if 5C "broke the conntection" for E/W, it would not have done so for N/S -mlf] --------------------------------------------------------- The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. On the information given at the table, West had reason to believe that his partner would be short in hearts and therefore his high-card strength would be useful. West also believed that his defensive values were sub-par for a 2C opener against a red two-suiter on his left. --------------------------------------------------------- The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the misexplanation. The misexplanation and subsequent auction created a clearly erroneous picture for West and he based his bid on that. The Committee discussed probable results if West had suddenly been told over 4H that North had either the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided there were too many possibilities. After deciding to award Average Plus to E/W, it was also decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best result they could have achieved on the board. Therefore, E/W were assigned Average Plus or +500, whichever was worse. N/S were assigned Average Minus or -500, whichever was better. ------------------------------------------------------ DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Lowell Andrews, Bill Passell ___________________________________________________ mlf: I thought the days were over for this sort of illegal AC decision. Is there no control over these people? The option for adjusting a score in this way should be deleted from the ACBLScore program, since its presence implies legality. This is L12C2 territory, so what would you have assigned each side, BLMLers? Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 30 10:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6U0e1Y26814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:40:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6U0dtt26810 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:39:56 +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 UAA07022 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA13571 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107300037.UAA13571@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Tenerife 20 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This appeal concerns a brown sticker convention changed after the system notes were required to be filed. I gather it was technically heard by the Tournament Committee rather than a regular Appeals Committee, although in practice at least some of the people were the same. The decision is obvious, although it is useful to publish it to remind people what the rules are. I wonder about one thing, though. The rules quoted by the committee say: Neither the replacement of a Brown Sticker convention with another Brown Sticker conventions (sic), nor the introduction of a new Brown Sticker convention will be permitted. However, the committee's decision reads, in part: 5) The pair receives an official warning: no change to their system, however small, will be allowed. If they do make changes, they shall have to play the WBF world standard system from then on to the end of the tournament. This seems to go beyond the policy quoted, which appears to allow _dropping_ a brown sticker convention or replacing it by a different non-brown-sticker convention. Was this part of the decision an additional punishment because the pair was already guilty, or does the policy say that once brown sticker conventions are filed, they must be used throughout the tournament? In fact, in general, is it allowed to change systems? What if a new, unexpected partnership is formed, perhaps because a player becomes ill? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 10:52:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6U0p6N26845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:51:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6U0p0t26841 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:51:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA07145 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:48:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA13718 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200107300048.UAA13718@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > So I regard both of these events as being > 'irregularities', and since they are conjoined I > believe we have to go back to the time on the > board when neither of them had occurred. This seems rather surprising, but if there is doubt, it would be good for the WBFLC to clear it up. Let's say a player revokes, and the TD misinforms the players about the one or two trick penalty. Now the revoker goes on to earn the two-trick penalty, but by a different line of play he could have held it to one. It seems quite reasonable to consider reducing the penalty to one trick or perhaps awarding a split score if the line of play might not have been spotted, but pretending the revoke never happened seems very strange. Perhaps I have misunderstood what Grattan was suggesting. In this example, the strangest thing of all would be an artificial score. I don't understand a reason for that, although (sorry David!) I believe it is legal. A terrible idea, mind you, and I would never want to see it happen, but (at least IMVHO) legal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 15:28:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6U5PRD06963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:25:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6U5PLt06953 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:25:21 +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 f6U5NYa04509 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <024d01c118b7$92c74820$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Subject: [BLML] Re: Toronto NABC impressions Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:18:17 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Ed Reppert wrote > Brian Baresch wrote: > > > And thanks to Marv I now have > > an iron-on transfer of the BLML logo. > > blml has a logo? :-) A proposed logo, designed by Brian. Very simple, it has BLML in blue with shadowing of the letters in grey. Looking carefully, you see that the shadows do not read BLML but RTFLB. I put this on the front of a t-shirt for wearing at Toronto, with the following on the back: [cartoon of two guys arguing vehemently] BRIDGE-LAWS MAILING LIST majordomo@ rgb.anu.edu.au "subscribe bridge-laws" Probably because we did not get past the qualifying first day of either the LM or IMP pair events, I didn't run into as many BLML subscribers as I had hoped to. Anyone wanting a copy of either can just e-mail me and I'll send it/them as a file attachment. All you have to do is print the file(s) onto transfer paper with a color printer, cut out with scissors, and have a t-shirt shop iron the result(s) onto your garment. Other candidates for iron-on transfers that I have are 4"-wide logos of almost all the NABCs of recent years. Most of the logos came from scans of ACBL t-shirts that I reduced in size in order to get them all on one t-shirt, front and back. These also are available for the asking. -- Marv Marvin L. French 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 Jul 30 17:29:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6U7RG611608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:27:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6U7R9t11604 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:27:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA31161; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:24:10 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jul 30 09:22:42 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6JCF6L5EI0009GQ@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:23:08 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:23:23 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:23:01 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid To: "'Fearghal O'Boyle'" , "'Grattan Endicott'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8CF@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > My question really is: > If 82C directs us to 12C2 in this particular case, then what > is the irregularity? - the TD error or the attempted change of call? > We need to know what the irregularity is if we are to > estimate the most favourable result had it not occured. > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > Less reluctant contributors to this group would have told us that the laws once more seem not adequately written. You gently ask how to interpret them. I am almost sure that the LC never asked itself this question, since it probably didn't occur as a problem to them (us). And as a TD it normally didn't occur as a problem to me either. With the exception that giving the offending side average plus when the TD makes a mistake and the score for the offenders without this mistake was predictable to be less, never struck me as a right approach. So I like the approach Grattan explained, applying L 12 and considering both sides innocent for that purpose. And then it seems consistent to take the TD-mistake as the irregularity to deal with. But then we certainly need an interpretation from the LC, since this is by far not obvious. But it solves the wrong explanation from the TD in case of a revoke. If the loss of the second trick can be avoided the offending side should only loose one trick. And the score for the innocent side should be based on one extra trick, in my opinion. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 17:52:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6U7oii11658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:50:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6U7obt11654 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:50:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-67-66.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.67.66] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15R7mA-000NYv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:47:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c118cc$2767e5c0$4243063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200107300037.UAA13571@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 20 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:44:57 +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: Monday, July 30, 2001 1:37 AM Subject: [BLML] Tenerife 20 > This appeal concerns a brown sticker convention changed after > the system notes were required to be filed. I gather it was > technically heard by the Tournament Committee rather than > a regular Appeals Committee, although in practice at least > some of the people were the same. > +=+ Tournament Appeals Committee is right; the regulations provide for this. Reinforcement was from the extended TAC. It was an 'investigation' rather than an appeal. +=+ > > The decision is obvious, although it is useful to publish it to > remind people what the rules are. I wonder about one thing, > though. The rules quoted by the committee say: > Neither the replacement of a Brown Sticker convention with > another Brown Sticker conventions (sic), nor the > introduction of a new Brown Sticker convention will be > permitted. > +=+ The typo is in the report, not in the regulations. There are one or two such typos on the web site. +=+ > However, the committee's decision reads, in part: > 5) The pair receives an official warning: no change to > their system, however small, will be allowed. If they do > make changes, they shall have to play the WBF world > standard system from then on to the end of the tournament. > > This seems to go beyond the policy quoted, which appears to > allow _dropping_ a brown sticker convention or replacing it by a > different non-brown-sticker convention. Was this part of the > decision an additional punishment because the pair was already > guilty, or does the policy say that once brown sticker conventions > are filed, they must be used throughout the tournament? > +=+ It was a condition imposed for the duration of the tournament as part of the committee's decisions. However, risking my neck in expressing someone else's opinion, I believe the Chairman thinks that for Hum systems it should be like this anyway. He does not wish the world at large to turn on Hum systems altogether, and says for this reason the rules regarding their use should be strict. He may well lead, eventually, a movement for much less, if any, freedom to change a Hum system after it has been submitted, but the intention is to leave the Systems Policy untouched for at least four years from the last revision. In its Systems Policy, as a matter of EBL policy, the EBL conforms to the WBF policy. This pair were endeavouring to do the right thing throughout; no suggestion of anything untoward about them. Their Hum system was new, not long devised, and they had not had experience enough of it for the corners to be smoothed off; if they plan to continue with it they will no doubt be revising some of its parts. +=+ > In fact, in general, is it allowed to change systems? What if a > new, unexpected partnership is formed, perhaps because a > player becomes ill? > -- +=+ The problem did arise. One Captain lost two players near the end, one from each of two pairs, so he had to make up a pair of the two players remaining from these pairs. They were allowed to take one of their systems already submitted and to modify it, to the extent they wished, by changing to green conventions and natural methods where there were conventions they did not wish to use. There was time to give a full day's notice to opponents before the revised card was introduced. Probably they would have been required to use a submitted card as submitted, or the World Card, had there been insufficient time to give due notice of a changed card. They produced a completely laid out convention card with all the changes on it, quite excellently done. +=+ ~Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 20:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UAdkK12004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:39:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UAdat11997 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:39:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-139.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.139]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f6UAan203682 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:36:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00a301c118e4$15c00380$8b3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <20010728222310.QHLE6576896.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:39:27 +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 Wayne asked: > Hi > > Declarer is in 6h Dbl. > > Apparently this contract can be made but > not after cA cashed and four rounds of > trumps since declarer's trumps are 4-4 > and the defenders' trumps are 5-0. > > At trick 11 declarer discovers that she has > 2 cards left and dummy has 4. There was much confusion. > > Noone had previously noticed that the dummy contained 14 cards. > > Declarer says she always ("99%") counts her > card but could not specifically remember > counting her cards. Dummy admitted not counting his cards. It is a player's responsibility to check whether he has the correct number of cards. The board is unplayable now, A+ to the NO, A- to the OS. Per default, every player who does not have the correct number of cards is at fault. Furthermore, the OS receives a standard PP for either not counting their cards, or accidentially getting one of declarer's cards into dummy. If there is evidence that the board was fouled at a previous table, then the players who fouled the board will receive a standard PP, too. If I get the impression that declarer/dummy intentionally messed up the board during play, then the ruling will be very harsh. 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 Jul 30 20:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UAdmN12005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:39:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UAdZt11996 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 20:39:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-139.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.139]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f6UAam203673 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:36:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00a201c118e4$155b4e40$8b3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200107300037.UAA13571@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 20 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:29:08 +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 Steve Willner asked: > This appeal concerns a brown sticker convention changed after the > system notes were required to be filed. I gather it was technically > heard by the Tournament Committee rather than a regular Appeals > Committee, although in practice at least some of the people were the > same. > > The decision is obvious, although it is useful to publish it to remind > people what the rules are. I wonder about one thing, though. The > rules quoted by the committee say: > Neither the replacement of a Brown Sticker convention with > another Brown Sticker conventions (sic), nor the > introduction of a new Brown Sticker convention will be > permitted. > > However, the committee's decision reads, in part: > 5) The pair receives an official warning: no change to > their system, however small, will be allowed. If they do > make changes, they shall have to play the WBF world > standard system from then on to the end of the tournament. > > This seems to go beyond the policy quoted, which appears to allow > _dropping_ a brown sticker convention or replacing it by a different > non-brown-sticker convention. Was this part of the decision an > additional punishment because the pair was already guilty, or does the > policy say that once brown sticker conventions are filed, they must be > used throughout the tournament? That pair did play a HUM system. There are additional regulation in effect for HUM systems. A pair who plays a HUM system is not allowed to make any significant changes to their system throughout the tournament, other than clarifications. I.e. they cannot play 1S = 0-7 any, and then if they notice that their opponents have a good defense against this convention play 1S = 11-15, 5+ spades. 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 Jul 30 21:58:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UBuHQ12207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:56:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from md3.vsnl.net.in (md3.vsnl.net.in [202.54.6.35]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UBuAt12203 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (unknown [203.199.227.170]) by md3.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DF223507; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:21:28 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <000001c118ed$cea4b0e0$aae3c7cb@default> From: "Raghavan" To: , "David J. Grabiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20010729090102.007e0630@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 13:09:07 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 Grabner wrote:< > I agree with his opinion of "I would not penalize the previous table for fouling the board without stronger evidence". But Law 7 B1 says:-Counting of cards in hand before play:-Each player shall count his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen. Law 90B7 'offenses subject to penalty':- Error in procedure: any error in procedure(such as failure to count cards in one's hand,etc)that requires an adjusted score for any contestant. Artificial assigned score means the score to be awarded when play continuation is impossible. In the present case play continuation is impossible since all cards are known to all 4 players. So in the present case the artificial score is called Assigned score. I would award 60% to non offending side,the defenders, and 40% to the declarers' side .The fault lies with declarers' side in not counting their cards before bidding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J. Grabiner" To: Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? > At 10:23 PM 7/28/01 +0000, Wayne wrote: > >At trick 11 declarer discovers that she has 2 cards left and dummy has 4. > There was much confusion. > > >None had previously noticed that the dummy contained 14 cards. > > >Now if the board was fouled at this table declarer deserves her bottom and > the defenders their top *but* if the board arrived at the table fouled the > board needs to be cancelled. How much evidence do you need? Or is there > some other solution? > > Lacking any evidence one way or the other, I would assume that the board > was fouled at the previous table for purposes of awarding an adjusted > score. An adjusted score is analogous to a civil ruling, which should be > based on a preponderance of the evidence. Since it is more common for a > board to be fouled when putting the hands back at the previous table than > when taking them out at the current table, I would make that assumption. > > > I would not penalize the previous table for fouling the board without > stronger evidence. > > > > >There was one additional piece of evidence. This boards was late arriving > (slow play at the previous table - but 2 boards a table so this did not > cause a delay). However the director was at the table at the previous > table. She remembers the s6 being on the table near the dummy's cards but > did not see it gathered incorrectly into that hand. > > > >Wayne Burrows > >10 Glen Place > >Palmerston North > >New Zealand > > > >0064 6 355 1259 > >025 667 1525 > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 30 22:13:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UCBc812835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:11:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UCBVt12830 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 22:11:31 +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 OAA07109; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:07:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2pc10 (cerap-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.4]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA04975; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:08:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <028f01c118f0$d4dc2760$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3B5D45C3.6030900@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:11:57 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Konrad Ciborowski Well, I'm perhaps a bit late, coming back as I am from a short holiday. But my feelings about that case are very precise and I can't leave it unanswered. 1. Do not apply L23. It is only made for cases of *forced* pass, and nobody has ever been forced to pass after partner's tempo. Also, a tempo is not an incorrection per se. 2. The south hand is indeed a nightmare, and there was certainly no 'undue' hesitation. Contrary to what Herman says, South was thinking about something -perhaps about bidding 3NT, which, if made, scores more than 3C -6. 3. The rest boils down to whether North has an obvious reopening. 3a. He has : you must question him on why he didn't do it. If he says he bent backwards, you will not have much ground on which to penalize him (but see item 5) 3b. He has not. Then his pass was the correct thing to do, since a long tempo usually suggests action. 4. Anyway, it seems to me impossible to penalize NS, because, if North had reopened on a non-obvious hand, you would have penalized him. You cannot rule that both passing and taking action are suggested by the tempo, thus you cannot disallow both the pass and the action. To do it would be penalizing NS for the hesitation about 80% of the time (that's my evaluations of the proportion of cases of non-obvious decision over a 3rd-in-hand preempt). 'if it hesitates, shoot it' is not one of the principles of the Laws. 5. The only case where you could penalize NS is when you have sound reasons to suspect the aim of the tempo was to impose the pass on North, who is known to 'bend backwards' -but this is impossible : such a North would not have such a South as a partner ; or that this pair uses this means to have partner pass, which means their are cheating. You will of course need more than one case. You could suspect it, if the 3D reopening was deemed absolutely obvious, but of course it is a deep position to take. 6. Yours truly could go as far as to pass North's hand after partner's tempo, and only for ethical reasons, you know, and I wouldn't relish the idea of being penalized for this. Or perhaps you would want to discourage ethics ? Regards, Alain. > Day 2: > Dealer West, North-South vulnerable. > > Tuszynski Jassem > W N E S > pass pass 3C ...pass > pass pass > > > 975 > Q964 > KQJ1083 > --- > QJ1032 864 > AJ72 8 > 952 A74 > 2 AK8763 > AK > K1053 > 6 > QJ10954 > > > > It took about a minute for South to pass over 3C. North decided > to "bend over backwards" and passed, too. > When the TD was called North stated that absent the hesitation he > would have certainly re-opened with 3D. > > Jassem went four down for a bottom. The TD let the result stand. > I wouldn't but I would like some support from BLML on this. > Do we apply "could have known" here? > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 31 00:14:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UECYW13105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:12:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (pn2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.10.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UECPt13101 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 00:12:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (RAS49_120.ppppun.vsnl.net.in [203.197.82.120]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD20710348 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:39:23 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3B656929.CA10610C@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:33:21 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Case for AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pune 30/July/2001 Dear Members, Following Case has been given to me by my friend for the opinion of our esteemed and knowledgeable members. Both the teams are of high level and experienced. Event was important, winner qualifies to play in selection trials to represent State. Both Vul , South Dealer , auction proceeds as under : S W N E The four hands were : 2S 3H P 3NT P P P J 7 93 Q543 AJ753 A Q 9 6 3 Q J 8 6 4 3 A 2 K J 6 A 9 8 7 KQ 8 T 9 6 K T 8 5 4 2 K T 5 T 2 4 2 South led 5 of spades. At trick 2 , declarer played H Q from dummy ( clearly a bad play ) which South ( smoothly ) ducked. Declarer played heart to his ace & pushed club 6 to the king which held ! He now played heart discarding a diamond while North discarded diamond 3 indicating no interest in diamonds. On winning the heart King , South played a club through dummy's Q 8 & this is where the drama began ......... Declarer , a soft spoken guy , whose announcement of cards while nominating them , is invariably less than clearly audible , murmered a card which both the defenders & more importantly North , heard as QUEEN and before dummy clearly picked a card from table , North's Ace had hit the table ! In fraction , North saw that Q was still on table & dummy was closing the eight & all realised what had happened. Director was called & to his query , declarer insisted that he said ' EIGHT' while North maintained that he heard Q otherwise he could nott be making such an irrational & foolish play. Director ascertained that Ace hit the table before any club card was clearly picked up by dummy. Director ruled : table result stands . As you will see , North had to simply cash his clubs & push a spade for down 3 . However , with this accident of sorts, declarer now made the contract as club Q was a stopper/winner & defenders were a trick short. North & South were highly experienced players & it was not beyond them to realise that it was a technical ruling for a technical blunder & they probably would not have appealed later if the same declarer had not caused similar audibility problems on further 2 deals when even dummy had started playing a card which declarer had not nominated ! Also,there are isssues of ' ruling in equity ' & ' committes' considered assessment of special situations" etc.etc. & hence N-S decided to appeal. Appeals committee dismissed the appeal after hearing both the parties. What is required to be ascertained here is if the commmittee decision was really that simple & straightforward or there was more to the case in view of the bridge law experts who are vastly knowledgeble on these issues. After all , the declarer got what he did not deserve a bit while an irrational & outrageous defense got assigned to North for faulty hearing & yes , haste. Thanks and Best Regards Yogesh -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 31 01:33:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UFV4P13296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:31:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UFUwt13292 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:30:59 +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 LAA25229 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA19578 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:28:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107301528.LAA19578@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: n y abhyankar > What is required to be ascertained here is if the commmittee decision > was really that simple & straightforward or there was more to the case If you want a different law to look at, try 46A. It says declarer "should" designate dummy's card "clearly." The preface tells us that "should" means failure to comply is an infraction, although one which will seldom be penalized. However, if the infraction damages the opponents, the score can be adjusted (L12A1). A similar example is L41D, which tells how dummy should spread his hand. Failure to comply is not even an infraction, but if it damages the defenders, the score can be adjusted. Determining the facts and applying judgment to decide whether L46A was violated or not may not be easy! I would not dare advise you about that. You will also need to decide what share of the blame, if any, the defenders deserve for their own hasty play. For the future, you can certainly instruct this declarer take greater care to follow L46A. PP's are allowable for repeated violations of any law, even where they would not be appropriate for a single instance. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 31 01:55:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UFrsC13377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:53:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UFrmt13373 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 01:53:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-95.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.95]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f6UFp2217476 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:51:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000301c1190f$fa33ff00$5f3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <20010728222310.QHLE6576896.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> <00a301c118e4$15c00380$8b3d1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] How much evidence to take away a top? Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:00:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Furthermore, the OS receives a > standard PP for either not counting > their cards, or accidentially getting one of declarer's > cards into dummy. Correction: they get two standard PPs, one for each of them. 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 Tue Jul 31 04:26:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6UIOrW13688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 04:24:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6UIOkt13684 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 04:24:47 +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 OAA04791 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA19861 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:21:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200107301821.OAA19861@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Marv's and Brian's BLML images X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now available at ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/outgoing/willner/blml/brianBiglogo.gif for the logo, and ftp://cfa-ftp.harvard.edu/outgoing/willner/blml/Bridge-Laws-Ad.jpg for the cartoon. (And very nice they are!) File sizes are just over 10 kB for the logo and just over 100 kB for the ad. Marv has invited David to put one or both on his website for more permanent storage. They will be gone from the above site in two weeks, if not sooner. Enjoy, and thanks Marv and 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 Jul 31 20:26:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VAOi529631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:24:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6VAObt29626 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 20:24:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-209.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.209]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f6VALeM10466 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:21:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:26:33 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$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: > > > > It's good to know that both Ton and Herman know what "demonstrably suggests" > means in L16A. Some seem to think it means "specifically suggests" rather > than the obviously intended broader sense of "suggests" (introduces to the > mind). > I see where Marv is heading. Normally, a pause suggests bidding. So one player hesitates, and the other passes. Now the hesitator turns out with a hand with which he wants partner to pass, so he has hesitated to induce this pass. Clearly that should be disallowed, but can we use L16 for this. I believe that in the case that is concerned here, we can. The player said he would never have passed, but for the hesitation of partner. The player himself says that the hesitation suggested to him that he should pass. But I agree with Marv that this is not always the case. When there are 2 LAs (not the case here), then we cannot use L16 - the hesitation cannot suggest passing AND bidding, simply depending on the intention of hesitator. Yet we still want to rule. So we'd better find ways of ruling this one as well, without using L16. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 31 21:10:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VBAfa02232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:10:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpe.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpe.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6VBAZt02228 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:10:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 3606 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 11:07:41 -0000 Received: from mail1.ha-net.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) ([207.44.96.65]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpe.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 31 Jul 2001 11:07:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 7487 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 11:07:41 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 31 Jul 2001 11:07:41 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 07:07:46 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 12:26:33 +0200, Herman de Wael wrote: >I believe that in the case that is concerned here, we can. >The player said he would never have passed, but for the >hesitation of partner. The player himself says that the >hesitation suggested to him that he should pass. > Herman, I suggest you review the original description of the case. We are most definitely NOT told that the player said that the hesitation suggested to him that he should pass. The description said that his pass was his best effort *NOT* to use the UI created by the hesitation, in other words, the player clearly thought that the hesitation suggested that he BID. 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 Jul 31 23:16:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VDGCp10158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6VDG6t10154 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:16:06 +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 f6VDDAo87742 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:13:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@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, 31 Jul 2001 09:15:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid In-Reply-To: <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010717075438.00ab4430@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010717154014.00af8950@127.0.0.1> <002301c10f49$71596dc0$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 07:30 PM 7/24/01, Peter wrote: >"There was some academic interest on Board 5. Chadwick did not see Clark's >redouble of her 2D bid (for rescue) and passed. >She called the director in order to change her bid - under >'inadvertency' - >but was informed she was not allowed to do so. She questioned this ruling, >but was made to play 2D redoubled for -1000. >At the end of the session the director returned, advising that her >previous >ruling was incorrect and the board would be scrubbed, with each side being >given 3 imps on the board" > >It struck me that it isn't obvious that not seeing a bid would cause your >call to become inadvertent. Is it generally accepted that it does? On the contrary, I believe it is generally accepted that it does not. The usual interpretation of "inadvertent" in L25A is that it applies only to mechanical errors or genuines "slips of the tongue"; it does not apply to calls made as a result of misperceiving the auction. There was a mis-ruling here, though, as the TD should have offered the player the opportunity to change his *not inadvertent* call under L25B. Had he done so, however, the player would have been limited to scoring A- at best (we can presume that his opponents, who did not ask the TD to allow him to substitute another call, would not have accepted one); it feels wrong to give A+ because the director's error deprived the player of at most A-. I can't cite chapter and verse from TFLB, but had I been the DIC, I would have assigned +3/-3 (I'm assuming that -1000 resulted in worse than -3 for the player who called the TD). On a related note, I took an informal poll of about half a dozen good but not top-level players (on the order of 1000-2000 ACBL master points) at the Toronto NABC, and discovered that not one of them was aware of their right to change a non-inadvertent call under L25B. That has left me firmly in the camp that has been arguing that L25B gives an inappropriate advantage to laws mavens and should be abolished. 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 Jul 31 23:51:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VDp2Z10180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:51:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6VDout10176 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:50:57 +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 f6VDm1192057 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:48:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731094355.00b11550@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, 31 Jul 2001 09:50:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid In-Reply-To: <200107252025.QAA14105@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:25 PM 7/25/01, Steve wrote: >I think David S. will have something to say on that subject! And I >don't think it will be hard to predict what it is. All together >now: "No artificial score when a result has been obtained." I don't speak for David, but I think there's a general consensus that in the case of a director's error the wording of L82C ("no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally") supercedes that of L12C1 ("no result can be obtained"). If that is indeed the intent of our lawmakers, perhaps it could be made a bit clearer by adding the word "artificial" to L82C ("...he shall award an artificial adjusted score..."). 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 Jul 31 23:54:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VDs9s10193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:54:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6VDs2t10189 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:54:03 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA13859; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:51:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 31 15:49:38 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K6L48IKF14000BAO@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:50:17 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:50:32 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 15:50:15 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D4@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > On a related note, I took an informal poll of about half a dozen good > but not top-level players (on the order of 1000-2000 ACBL master > points) at the Toronto NABC, and discovered that not one of them was > aware of their right to change a non-inadvertent call under > L25B. That > has left me firmly in the camp that has been arguing that > L25B gives an > inappropriate advantage to laws mavens and should be abolished. > > > 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 Your argument seems to be true for almost all laws, our own and others. And furthermore can be applied towards knowledge,intelligence, money, mighty relatives and so on. Couldn't it be true that you describe here the fundamental thoughts about communism? A pity we just got rid of it almost everywhere. 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/