From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 00:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VE40v10219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:04:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6VE3pt10215 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:03:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (unknown [203.197.84.157]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32E65620 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:30:50 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:25:41 +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 RESENDING as in original message I think bidding and hands had got got garbled, may be due to cut paste. I hope it goes in order now. SORRY FOR THE INCONVINIENCE CAUSED 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 2S 3H P 3NT P P P The four hands were : 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 KQ8 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 Wed Aug 1 00:15:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VEFWY10256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:15:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.de (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6VEFOt10248 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:15:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15RaG6-0002ow-02; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:12:30 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.172.60]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15RaFt-25UvzsC; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:12:17 +0200 Message-ID: <3B66BD5A.F1A89A3F@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:14:50 +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] EBL TD course in Tabiano References: <01C1154D.D2653E00.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 > 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. Hi folks, I'm going too (about 99%). See you there! 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 Wed Aug 1 00:46:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VEk0O10345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:46:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6VEjqt10325 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 00:45:53 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA23225; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:42:58 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jul 31 16:41:27 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 <01K6L629T512000BDY@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:42:31 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:42:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 16:42:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano To: "'ziffbridge@t-online.de'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D5@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 To quote Eric Landau: this gives these people a huge advantage since many of the problems have been discussed here in one way or another. So let us stop this discussion group. Or might that be the reason why we always try to confuse the answers? ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: ziffbridge@t-online.de [mailto:ziffbridge@t-online.de] > Verzonden: dinsdag 31 juli 2001 16:15 > Aan: BLML > Onderwerp: Re: [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? > > > > I am looking forward to meeting all my BLML friends and others. > > > > Best regards, > > Fearghal. > > Hi folks, > > I'm going too (about 99%). See you there! > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 01:13:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VFDfc15779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:13:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6VFDZt15747 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:13:35 +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 f6VFAeo02282 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:10:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731105925.00ac8720@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 11:12:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] NABC Case 4 (Daily Bulletin July 27) In-Reply-To: <01e101c1188c$7beb70c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:13 PM 7/29/01, Marvin wrote: >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? I agree with Marv that this ruling is clearly illegal. The AC was acting inappropriately when they "decid[ed] to award Average Plus to E/W", and the nonsense followed. That said, I agree with the AC's reasoning as to the effect of the MI. I would have ruled N-S -500, E-W +500, with no additional qualification. Although it's not relevant to Marv's point, the most egregious error made, IMO, was the original TD's finding that 5C, given the MI, was an egregious error. It was arguably a bad bid, but a very long way from enough to break the connection between the infraction and the damage. At least the AC got that part right. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 02:14:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VGCTp25978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 02:12:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6VGCNt25961 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 02:12:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6VG9RK40514 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@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 12:11:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - In-Reply-To: <3B66D869.1050.1CE8B77@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1> <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:10 AM 7/31/01, stefan wrote: >On 31 Jul 2001, at 9:15, Eric Landau wrote: > > > 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. > >Yes and please lets abolish squeezes and end plays, that gives >an inappropiate advantage to the ones that can recognize them .. >;-) Or, in the spirit of L25B, let's make a rule that would allow a player about to get a zero for going down in a slam that could have been made on a squeeze or end play, who realizes that he has misplayed the hand and could have played for the winning end position, to retract his previous play, substitute plays in the correct order to accomplish the squeeze or end play, and get a 40% score for the deal. >What does to play bridge mean? imho it means to play a card game >regulated by some rules (or you if like it more, laws). But here >we see the typical sad situation of bridge, several 1000-2000 >master pointer that didn't take the time to read *once* the >rules of the game they are playing. Why is this a sad situation? It is not sad that one may drive a car without having studied the motor vehicle code, nor that one may pay one's taxes without having read the entire tax code. The vast majority of players understand the basic concepts of "bridge" but neither have read nor desire to read the official Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. They come to play, and expect that when something irregular happens (whether it is their or their opponents' fault) the laws will deal with it more or less fairly. That is a good thing, for if we impose an expectation of an understanding and mastery of the laws, we shall have no more than a few thousand duplicate players world wide. The laws should be written to support those players' expectations, i.e. so that when something irregular happens, it will be dealt with more or less fairly. It does not and will not, however, occur to those players who have not studied TFLB that when they make a bad call and wish that they had done something different that this is "something irregular" for which the law prescribes a "remedy". They do not realize that there are particular circumstances in which the law says that "to play bridge" includes the ability to call for a "do-over" when they make a bidding error. While L25B is certainly "bridge" according to TFLB, it is not at all in conformity with "bridge" as understood by the majority who choose to trust the laws rather than master them. To me, when "bridge" as set forth the TFLB is radically different from "bridge" as understood by the vast majority of its players, it is the former rather than the latter that we should seek to change. 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 Aug 1 06:41:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VKeFI22031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:40:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6VKe6t22022 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 06:40:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f6VKcGj05461 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:32:41 -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: "Brian Meadows" < > 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. > We seem to have a semantic problem. The hesitation brought into his mind the notion that he should pass, something he would not normally have done. That means (in one sense) that the pass was suggested to him by the hesitation. I use this analogy: The actions of a pretty woman might suggest something to me that is not inherent in those actions. 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 Aug 1 08:00:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VLxTj02836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:59:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f6VLxKt02809 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:59:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 910 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 21:56:26 -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 21:56:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 5521 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2001 21:56:25 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 31 Jul 2001 21:56:25 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:56:32 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <6j9emt4apcbbm9p652l7l6cc314j34329r@4ax.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 13:32:41 -0700, Marvin French wrote: > >From: "Brian Meadows" < > >> 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. >> >We seem to have a semantic problem. The hesitation brought into his >mind the notion that he should pass, something he would not normally >have done. That means (in one sense) that the pass was suggested to >him by the hesitation. > In one sense, yes, but when the original post explicitly stated that this was north's effort to "bend over backwards" not to use the UI, then I think the correct sense is clear enough. Yes, the pass was suggested to north by the UI - suggested because it was his best effort *NOT* to take advantage of the UI. The way it reads to me is that North thought south's hesitation suggested that he should bid, and therefore he passed. How many times do we hear that "It is not sufficient to make the bid that you were going to make absent the UI"? You may question north's judgement as to whether 3D was not the correct bid even with the UI, but as others have pointed out, the UI can't *simultaneously* suggest both 3D and pass, north has to be able to do one or the other without penalty. You can't (IMHO, at least) enforce a ruling on north which says that the action suggested by the UI varies with partner's holding. Really, Marv, what you say above simply can't hold water - otherwise any time a player deliberately takes the non-suggested alternative in order to try to avoid using UI, you'd nail him because the action he took was suggested to him by the UI! We'd be in a situation where you DID have to "bid what you were going to bid absent the UI". >I use this analogy: The actions of a pretty woman might suggest >something to me that is not inherent in those actions. > Sorry, I don't see the relevance. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 08:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f6VMuRg12147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:56:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f6VMuJt12128 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:56:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.78.219] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15RiOA-00002r-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:53:23 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c11a13$5b8db940$db4e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:51:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > > 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. > > > We seem to have a semantic problem. The hesitation brought into his > mind the notion that he should pass, something he would not normally > have done. That means (in one sense) that the pass was suggested to > him by the hesitation. There isn't really a semantic problem, though it is easy to see how one may have arisen. What the hesitation in and of itself suggested has nothing to do with the application of Law 16 or Law 73. These Laws are concerned only with preventing a player from acting on information conveyed by means of a hesitation - it is that information, insofar as it relates to the content of the partner's hand, on which the player must not act. Thus, if a pause before doubling for penalty conveys the information that the double is not based on the "usual" quota of defensive tricks for such a double, the partner of the doubler must pass it unless to do so would be "illogical". It is generally accepted that, for example, a pause before a penalty double will indeed convey that kind of message, so we will rule against a player who removes the double if he could logically pass it. But it would be possible for partnerships to arrange a form of illegal communication in which a pause before a double would convey the information that the doubler is on firm ground. Of course, such information is just as illegal as the other kind, and so is acting upon it. In the actual example, it is misleading to say: "the hesitation suggested that he BID", since we do not know what form of illegal communication the partnership was attempting to employ. Assuming, however, that they were not playing "reverse hesitations", what has happened is this: the information content of the hesitation was that the partner had extra values; this information suggested that the player should bid; when he passed, this was "suggested to him" not by the information content of the hesitation but by his knowledge of the Laws and his desire to act with propriety. The fact of the hesitation was a major contributing factor in his decision to pass, but it would not be true to say that in any sense, his pass was "suggested by" the hesitation. 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 Aug 1 11:46:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f711ivG26927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:44:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f711int26918 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:44:49 +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 VAA02270 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA03232 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:41:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:41:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108010141.VAA03232@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 owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Tue Jul 31 06:24:10 2001 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > From: Herman De Wael > 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. L16 says "suggested over another." Can you say that the long pause suggests passing over bidding? Hardly. And that makes sense. The player who passed was doing exactly what he is required to do under L73C. That certainly isn't an infraction! If you want an infraction, it has to be the long pause, not the resulting pass. > Yet we still want to rule. So we'd better find ways of > ruling this one as well, without using L16. Not a problem, Herman. See my earlier messages about 73D1 and 72B1. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 18:31:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f718Oxk11340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 18:24:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f718Oqt11336 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 18:24:52 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA03474; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:21:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 01 10:20:26 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 <01K6M719HLI2000C7T@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:21:31 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:21:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:21:29 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@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 31 Jul 2001, at 9:15, Eric Landau wrote: Somewhere in 1973 a mister Eric Landau wrote a letter to the Bridge World; together with the answer from Edgar Kaplan it resulted in one of the nicest articles ever written about the bridge laws, subject being the consequent/subsequent distinction when damage occurs. We will distribute this article for the EBL-TD course so your name will be there Eric. I'll them you are still alive, and also still owner of a club? It is a pity BLML can't handle added files, you all should read it. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 21:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71BFHg17686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:15:17 +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 (f193.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f71BFAt17679 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:15:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 04:12:10 -0700 Received: from 213.40.131.97 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:12:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [213.40.131.97] From: "Michael Amos" To: agot@ulb.ac.be, cibor@interia.pl, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 11:12:10 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Aug 2001 11:12:10.0506 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF0B96A0:01C11A7A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've been away too and may have missed some previous discussion so if I am repeating other's comments sorry While I agree entirely with the majority of Alain's analysis - I too think it impossible for the TD to adjust here because of North's pass - "damned if I do - damned if I don't" I think his Point 2 is arguable - "No UNDUE hesitation" - What goes through a bridge-player's mind when holding this hand ony to hear LHO open 3C ? - surprise shock you expect 3D not 3C "Wouldn't it be wonderful if partner protects with a double - They never do though - Sh******t I'd better pass quick or he'll be in trouble if I hesitate " PASS - Surely this takes 5 seconds or less not a minute and so therefore it seems to me we ought to at least discuss 73D1 in relation to South's tempo If we were to rule that South's long long hesitation was inadvertent and that "he could have known that this would work to his advantage" - ie North would pass any marginal hands; then we could adjust without any accusations of impropriety - Perhaps South has not been careful enough here As a TD consulting with others I would certainly think this position worth discussing Mike >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Konrad Ciborowski" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? >Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:11:57 +0200 > > >----- 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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Aug 1 22:00:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71C0B724166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:00:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f71C03t24155 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:00:04 +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 f71Bv5o09371; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010801075119.00b04cb0@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, 01 Aug 2001 07:59:10 -0400 To: "Kooijman, A." From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:21 AM 8/1/01, you wrote: >Somewhere in 1973 a mister Eric Landau wrote a letter to the Bridge World; >together with the answer from Edgar Kaplan it resulted in one of the >nicest >articles ever written about the bridge laws, subject being the >consequent/subsequent distinction when damage occurs. >We will distribute this article for the EBL-TD course so your name will be >there Eric. I'll them you are still alive, and also still owner of a >club? >It is a pity BLML can't handle added files, you all should read it. I confess; that was me. I am indeed still alive. I am not a club owner and never have been, although I've been a hired club manager/director from time to time over the last 35 years or so, and an occasional director for our (Washington Bridge League) unit game. I am delighted to learn that my correspondence with EK/TBW, which dates to the initial proposal of the now-so-called "Kaplan doctrine" in TBW, is still being read almost 30 years later. /eric Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 22:46:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71CjcG03502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:45:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f71CjRt03474 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-29.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.29]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f71CgPn19207 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:42:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B66D5BF.351EDDCB@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:58:55 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > 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. > Exactly. So South, knowing that his partner is an ethical player, and wanting him to pass, provides him with UI that suggests to bid, thereby inducing a pass. North is beyond reproach, and we cannot use L16 against him; But South may not be, and we need a law to deal with him. Well, that one exists as well : L73B1. Or even L73B2. -- 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 Aug 1 23:34:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71DXGs14877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:33:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f71DX6t14850 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:33:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4197 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 13:30:10 -0000 Received: from mail1.ha-net.ptd.net (HELO mail.ptd.net) ([207.44.96.65]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Aug 2001 13:30:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 9962 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2001 13:30:10 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Aug 2001 13:30:10 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:30:15 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 01 Aug 2001 10:21:29 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > >Somewhere in 1973 a mister Eric Landau wrote a letter to the Bridge World; >together with the answer from Edgar Kaplan it resulted in one of the nicest >articles ever written about the bridge laws, subject being the >consequent/subsequent distinction when damage occurs. >We will distribute this article for the EBL-TD course so your name will be >there Eric. I'll them you are still alive, and also still owner of a club? >It is a pity BLML can't handle added files, you all should read it. > Given Ton thought the article worth reading, I asked him to send it me, and I'd do any needed conversions and paste it into an e-mail. Here you go, folks..... Brian. an article out The Bridge World (1973) We recently received an interesting letter from a subscriber, taking issue with our position (June, 1973) on when to give redress to the innocent side after an opponent's infraction. This letter and Edgar Kaplan's reply to it explore this important question so thoroughly that. we present them both here. TO THE EDITOR: I run a weekly duplicate club it is small, and has few very good players. Back in the good old days, until a few weeks ago, I was considered by my players to he a very fair-minded director. My rulings were considered unimpeachable. Then something happened. To set the stage, let me give you an example from the last game I directed prior to my tale of woe. (Case 1) I was called to the table and confronted with an auction that had gone: North: two hearts; East: pass; South: four hearts; West 90-second huddle, then pass; North: pass; East: five clubs . . . Director! I ordered that the play continue; South bid five hearts, played there, and went down one, for -100. It was quite clear that East did not have a reasonable five-club bid without his partner's hesitation. I ruled that the score should be adjusted to +620 for N-S. Everyone was satisfied with the ruling. During the following week,. I received my June issue of BRIDGE WORLD, and being a conscientious director I turned immediately to "How Would You Rule?" and read it with great care. I was intrigued by the guiding principle of the entire article, which was stated quite clearly on page 22, to wit: 'The innocent side always bears the primary responsibility for protecting themselves - we will not protect them against their own error. We must be able to say: 'any player of comparable ability. . . might reasonably have done what he did.' Several examples were given of BW's position that adjustments should not be made where the offended side was hurt by its own error. I determined that I would apply this new-found principle in future club games. That week, at the game, I was called to a table where I was confronted with (Case 2) an auction and result identical to that of the previous week. Once again, there was no question but that East's five-club bid had been based solely on partner's hesitation. This time, though, I did something I hadn't done the previous week: I opened up the traveling score and looked at the results. Every pair in the room had made 11 tricks on the N-S cards; only half had reached game, and the scores were evenly divided between +650 and +200 for N-S. It turned out that five hearts was in fact cold on a finesse; the North player had simply neglected to take it (he explained that his hay fever made his eyes water, and he had thought that the diamond queen was the jack). I ruled that -100 should stand. North argued that E-W had quite clearly committed an infraction, and that N-S had equally clearly been damaged. receiving 0 match points instead of 5 as a result of the five-club bid. I explained patiently (quoting BW) - that N-S had not been damaged by East's five-club bid but rather by their own error in play, and hence were entitled to no redress. But, persisted North, without the opponent's clear infraction his error would have legitimately cost him 2½ match points; why should the cost of the error be multiplied by 3 as a result of the opponent's illegality? I told him that if he didn't understand he should buy a subscription to THE BRIDGE WORLD, but I must admit I was a little puzzled myself. The next week, the same auction took place again, under identical circumstances (Case 3). This time luckily, when I looked at the results, all five pairs who had played the board previously had got +620. I breathed a sigh of relief, adjusted the N-S score -100 to +620, and got no argument from anybody My relief was short-lived, however. Two rounds later I was called to a table where that same board had just been played with the identical auction and result I remembered so well. This time, however, (Case 4), the East player, anticipating that I might be tempted to rule that N-S were entitled to +620, quickly pointed out that North could have made five- on a double squeeze. North, as East adamantly pointed out, was the club's only LM, and quite capable of executing a double squeeze- which nobody else in the club could even understand. North, under careful questioning, revealed that he had indeed executed double squeezes in the past and did know how to do it; he had simply overlooked this one. I was forced to rule that "any player of comparable ability" would be reasonably expected to make the hand; hence N-S had been damaged not by the opponent's infraction but rather by their own error, and that the result of -100 should stand. Of course, none of the mere players in the club could understand my rationale; it certainly appeared that I had been called twice, on the same hand, under identical circumstances, and had made exactly opposite rulings in the two cases. Bridge players being the open-hearted and fair-minded souls that. they are, it never occurred to anyone that my rulings might have anything to do with the people involved and my feelings towards them, but maybe I was just lucky. At any rate, my players were getting awfully confused about when they were entitled to an adjustment for an irregularity and when they were not. But the worst was yet to come. The following week. I was, not surprisingly, called to a table where exactly the same auction had taken place once again. This time (Case 5) N-S had exactly 10 tricks, no more, no less, on any line of play. But there was a new wrinkle. West claimed that South's five-heart bid was not a reasonable call, and that indeed, if South had chosen to double five clubs E-W would have gone 800 down. Hence, argued West, it was not East's infraction that damaged the N-S side, but rather their own bidding error. East had foolishly put his head on the block for N-S getting +800; N-S, in ·refusing to take the gift offered them, had committed no less an error than would have been the case had they refused the diamond finesse on the hand of two weeks previous. A committee was chosen ·(from the best players in the club, of course); they examined all four hands and solemnly announced that they would all have doubled five clubs had it been bid against them. Once again BW's theory was vindicated; N-S had got -100 instead of +800 by their own error, and hence were not entitled to any adjustment. Last night we held our club championship, and once again I was called to the table to confront the identical auction (Case 6). By coincidence, the West player was the same person who had been sitting South at the table where the problem had arisen the week before. Once again, there were exactly 10 tricks in the hand, and N-S had scored -100 vs. everyone else's +620. Once again five clubs doubled would have been three down. The only difference was that on this hand E-W weren’t vulnerable! N~S argued that East's offense had given him a zero regardless of what he did thereafter, and that he was therefore entitled to redress in the amount of the 5 match points he would have had if the irregularity had not occurred. West pointed out that when he had bid five hearts in that situation the previous week and gone down, it had been ruled that he had made an error and was therefore not entitled to an adjustment; surely South, who bid an absolutely unmakable contract when he could have doubled the opponents and beaten them several tricks had just made the same mistake and should receive the same ruling. Consider the alternatives: (I) Award +620. This means that the decision between -100 and +620 can, in theory, depend in otherwise identical circumstances on the vulnerability of the offenders; or (2) Award the actual result, - 100. This means that an offended pair, by bidding (or playing) in less than the optimum way after an offense has been committed, can forfeit their right to an adjustment even when their error does not affect the march-point result. It appears to me that the first alternative seems patently absurd, and that the second constitutes an open admission tbat BW's interpretation of the rules protects only the best players and leaves those of us who do make mistakes sometimes at the mercy of our opponents' illegalities. The ruling in the last case represented the difference between first and second in the event for the two pairs involved. Since I didn't know how to rule, I followed the precedent and took the only reasonable course; I arbitrarily declared the event to be a tie. Eric Landau Rochester, N.Y. Dear Mr. Landau, Your club must be haunted-what you really need is an exorcist. Still, that string of supernatural coincidences was fortunate, since it prescnts us with some very interesting cases. The six are identical in that N-S would clearly have scored +620, instead of -100, had there been no EW infraction; and in all six cases the infraction to some extent led to the N-S disaster, although to what extent varied considerably. Under the standards described in June "How Would You Rule?" the offenders, E-W, are scored as -620 in all six cases. However, the ruling for N-S may depend on how directly the infraction led to the damage. The crucial distinction in the N-S rulings is between damage suffered subsequent to the infraction and damage suffered as a direct consequence of the infraction: no redress is given for damage that is merely subsequent, while for damage that is directly consequent there is redress. The differing rulings in your six similar cases create an impression of unfairness, even absurdity. But this - is an illusion, caused by the fuzziness of the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent"- in some of your examples. Perhaps it would help to examine an entirely different set of facts, in which this critical distinction is more crisp. -. Board 7 was played 13 times in a Sectional tournament. Invariably, South opened one notrump; at 12 tables West then had to pass, since he had no convenient vulnerable action available for his rather good hand: x Qxxxx AQJ Axxxx. At those 12 tables everyone else passed also; one notrump always went down one, -100. However, at table 13 the E-W pair were using "Brozell," so this West was able to overcall two clubs, showing clubs and hearts. East responded two hearts, played there and scored 110, giving NS a zero. But E-W had committed an infraction: Case A. EW had gone to the wrong table; instead of going to table 13 in Section K where they belonged, they went to 13 in Section J. By the time the proper E-W pair came to the table, the bidding was over and dummy exposed; the director properly ordered that play continue. Afterwards N-S protested: "We were completely innocent (we even asked E-W their pair number and got the right answer). Why should we get a bottom because of the E-W infraction? The E-W that we were supposed to face don't use "Brozell," and admit that they would have let us play one notrump. Had it not been for the irregularity, we would have been -100 like everyone else." Now, most directors would penalize the wandering E-W pair for their infraction, but no director in the world would give the luckless N-S anything except heart-felt sympathy. They were damaged after the infraction, but not by it - the damage was "subsequent," not "consequent!' Their claim - that had it not been for the infraction they would have been better off - is entirely true, and quite irrelevant. Just about any subsequent event is, to some degree, consequent as well. If Napoleon had won the battle of Waterloo, the ripples of change would have spread so far that "Brozell" would never have been invented - I have no doubt of that whatever. So, if Blücher had not been allowed to join Wellington, or if the E-W pair from K had not wandered into J, NS wouldn't have suffered their zero. But I am no more inclined to award redress to NS for EW's infraction than for Marechal. Crouchy's - in neither case was the damage (-110) a direct and natural consequence of the infraction. Case B. The right E-W pair came to the table this time, but it was illegal by them to use “Brozell” since this Sectional did not allow Class C conventions. Again, N-S protested: had it not been for the infraction, they would have been better off. Here, their claim is both true and relevant, for the damage (-110) was a direct and natural consequence of the infraction (the illegal convention). So, the score should be adjusted for both pairs. Case C. "Brozell" war illegal as in Case B, but the case differed in this'one respect: whereas two hearts was cold in B, here East made two hearts only because North revoked; on any normal defense N-S would have been +200, getting a top instead of a bottom. Still, NS protested: had it not been for the infraction, they would have been -100, not -110 (and North would have been dummy, so he couldn't revoke). True, but irrelevant. The damage (-110) was a direct conequence not of the infraction ”Brozell" but of the revoke. The damage came after the infraction, and it also came after the battle of Waterloo. it was subsequent, not consequent. E-W should be penalized for their infraction, and N-S should keep the zero they have earned. OK, now that I have defined my terms, "consequent" and "subsequent," let's get around to your cases. Case 1 (the unsophisticated, pre BRIDGE WORLD ruling) -You did not ascertain the key fact: was the damage consequent or only subsequent?' So, there is no way to judge whether your ruling was correct. Much of the time it would turn out right to give redress to NS, since on the surface their damage appears to be a direct and natural consequence of the infraction. Case 2 (North had hay fever, and neglected to finesse. Your ruling was correct. N-S should be scored as -100, since the only "direct and natural consequence" of the infraction, which pushed N to five, would be +650. The damage, -100, came from North's gross error - it was subsequent, not consequent. North's complaint, the usual "had it not been for the infraction ...," gets us back to Waterloo. Case 3 (everybody made 620 in four hearts. Your ruling, +620, was probably right. The fact that everyone else made 10 tricks at hearts establishes a strong presumption that the damage was "a direct and natural consequence" of the infraction. Still, that is only a presumption. not a certainty. Suppose (see Case 5) that five clubs doubled would go down 800, and the NS decision to bid five hearts was insane. Or suppose that the other Norths had been held to 10 tricks by the normal opening lead, while this North had been given an eleventh trick by a gambling lead, but had gone down anyway because his hay fever later induced an egregious error. Then the damage would be "a direct and natural consequence" not of the infraction but of a N-S error. It would be "subsequent," not “consequent"- no redress. Case 4 (same, but an expert North missed a double squeeze). Your ruling here, -100 was wrong. To decide that the damage was "consequent," there is no need to find that it was the sole possible consequence of the infraction, but only that it was one of a number of fairly normal consequences, a result that would follow, say, 25% of the time. To err is human, and many errors, indeed most, fall into that "fairly normal, 25%" category; certainly, missing a double squeeze falls there, even for a Life Master. The type of error that makes damage "subsequent" can be seen in the examples in the June "How Would You Rule?": a player doesn't see one of his cards; a player revokes; a defender on lead against six-notrump-doubled fails to lead one of his two aces; glaring, foolish errors. Abnormal errors of this sort snap the connection between infraction and damage; one can no longer say that the damage is a direct and natural consequence of the infraction. Mind you, there can be close cases. Iif declarer fails to execute a clash squeeze, that error is "fairly normal"; and if he pulls the wrong card accidentally, that is "abnormal" - but what if his error is, say, to draw trumps too soon, so that he no longer can ruff a loser? Here you might tailor your ruling to the skill of the declarer. An inexperienced club player might make this error one time in three, so for him to go down in five hearts is a fairly normal consequence of the infraction. In contrast, if Norman Kay were declarer, a revoke would have a higher frequency than this sort of error. The direct link between infraction and damage would be broken by what would be, for him, a bizarre accident. His damage would be "subsequent" not "consequent." In a sense this discriminates against good players, but the principle is sound: the poorer the player, the more protection he needs from the Laws: the better the player, the more he is expected to protect himself. Case 5 (five clubs doubled would go down 800). My guess is that your ruling, -100, was wrong. While it can often be an error to go on to five hearts instead of doubling five clubs, it is seldom an abnormal error. Still, if either partner bid five hearts on such emaciated values that his decision was irrational, I would leave N-S with their -100. Case 6 (same, but since E-W are non-vul. five clubs would go down only 500). This is the clearest of all the cases. it is hard to see how the N-S decision to bid five hearts could be anything but "fairly normarl on this vulnerability; however, the N-S score should be adjusted to +620 even if their bid was the most monstrous, moronic mistake ever made by man. This time it is the N-S error that is as irrelevant as the battle of Waterloo, since the zero, their damage, was unrelated to that error. Rather, the damage was the direct and natural consequence of the infraction. In fact, it was the inevitable consequence, so how can there be any argument? That there was an argument is entirely a result of the opposite ruling the week before, under almost the same circumstances. I suggest that you attempt, in future, to avoid having identical hands dealt on successive weeks. It is bound to be unsettling. Edgar Kaplan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 1 23:49:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71Dme818429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:48:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f71DmXt18412 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:48:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (209-193-12-158-dial-en7.fai.acsalaska.net [209.193.12.158]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f71DjZ204143; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 05:45:35 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <3B680823.7A442A0F@ptialaska.net> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 05:46:11 -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 CC: Gordon Bower , mlfrench1@writeme.com Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? References: <00c001c10b1c$596585e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B4E2C17.10B0AC9C@ptialaska.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The original question was "is 2C Michaels over Precision 1C alertable; is 3C Michaels over strong&artificial 2C alertable?" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > Someone else please check with Gary, as he must be tired of getting my > > constant e-mails. gary.blaiss@acbl.org Finally received a response from Gary Blaiss in a private email. In the ACBL, > The 2C and 3C calls are Alerts if not natural as the club openings > are artificial. However, it is unlikely that opponents (average or > better levels) will be entitled to redress. > > Most people would assume that the 2 and 3 club bids are natural > and that an artificial meaning is unexpected and unusual. -- Unsolicited commercial email will be spell-checked for a fee of $100. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 01:00:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71ExXP25450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:59:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f71ExPt25439 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 00:59:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f71EuSK50166 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@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, 01 Aug 2001 10:58:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? In-Reply-To: <3B66D5BF.351EDDCB@village.uunet.be> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:58 AM 7/31/01, Herman wrote: >Exactly. > >So South, knowing that his partner is an ethical player, and >wanting him to pass, provides him with UI that suggests to >bid, thereby inducing a pass. > >North is beyond reproach, and we cannot use L16 against him; > >But South may not be, and we need a law to deal with him. > >Well, that one exists as well : L73B1. >Or even L73B2. But there is nothing in the original post to suggest that this is the case. I feel rather strongly that there must be at least some, albeit not necessarily conclusive, evidence that South was trying to "do something" before we invoke L73 in this case. It seems pretty clear that had North taken a bid, and gained thereby, we would have had little hesitation in adjusting the score. As other have pointed out, we cannot support penalizing a pair any time someone hesitates and his partner finds the winning call regardless of what that call was, else we make it a redressable infraction just to hesitate. If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it will be taken away. 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 Aug 2 02:19:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71GIvO00751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:18:58 +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 f71GIlt00726 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:18:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f71GGuj16546 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:16:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001401c11aa5$2dbd6f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:09:34 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was particularly interested in the following quote of Edgar Kaplan's words in *The Bridge World": "The type of error that makes damage "subsequent" can be seen in the examples in the June "How Would You Rule?": a player doesn't see one of his cards; a player revokes; a defender on lead against six-notrump-doubled fails to lead one of his two aces; glaring, foolish errors. Abnormal errors of this sort snap the connection between infraction and damage; one can no longer say that the damage is a direct and natural consequence of the infraction." This shows what was meant by the ACBL LC's use of the word "egregious" in regard to actions that can annul redress for the NOS. Edgar chaired the LC meeting that established that criterion in an official interpretation, and this quote makes clear what was meant by "egregious." It is quite in conformance with the WBFLC's words: "irrational, wild, or gambling." The ACBL has the reputation of demanding more of the NOS than is asked elsewhere, which seems to be true, and is so stated by Rich Colker in the NABC casebooks. Example from Anaheim Case 3: "...our criteria may be more demanding than used elsewhere, but we have a right to our criterion just as they do." Claims that Edgar or the ACBL LC was the source of this policy are obviously not accurate. It is a policy of the ACBL AC organization, which has no authority to interpret the Laws. 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 Aug 2 02:19:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71GIvP00750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:18:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f71GImt00728 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:18:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f71GGvj16579 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001501c11aa5$2e0833a0$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> <3B680823.7A442A0F@ptialaska.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] MI? Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:13:17 -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: "Michael Schmahl" > The original question was "is 2C Michaels over Precision 1C alertable; > is 3C Michaels over strong&artificial 2C alertable?" > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > Someone else please check with Gary, as he must be tired of getting my > > > constant e-mails. gary.blaiss@acbl.org > > Finally received a response from Gary Blaiss in a private email. In the > ACBL, > > > The 2C and 3C calls are Alerts if not natural as the club openings > > are artificial. However, it is unlikely that opponents (average or > > better levels) will be entitled to redress. > > > > Most people would assume that the 2 and 3 club bids are natural > > and that an artificial meaning is unexpected and unusual. > Ah, just as I thought. Thanks for checking, Michael. 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 Aug 2 02:41:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71GdqE04959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:39:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f71Gdit04938 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31.9.) id 7.d7.a122678 (4069); Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:36:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:36:35 EDT Subject: [BLML] Travel To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, anna@ecats.co.uk, cyaxares@lineone.net CC: Michael.Bean@t-online.de, hoosiercoop@prodigy.net, PanellaM@aol.com, Anniebigto@aol.com, ltegreene@vistana.com, Schoders@aol.com, caroline.roberts@worldnet.att.net, ecoclost@bellsouth.net, rgrenside@ozemail.com.au, bridgemaster@lupinclose.freeserve.co.uk, Gpoplawsky@cs.com, Susi421@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d7.a122678.28998a13_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_d7.a122678.28998a13_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bud and I will be leaving Tampa tomorrow evening for Brasil. We'll be at the World Junior Teams Championships, and can be reached there in an emergency thru anna@ecats.co.uk. until the 18th of August. At least it'll keep me from antagonizing anyone on BLML for the nonce. Kojak --part1_d7.a122678.28998a13_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bud and I will be leaving Tampa tomorrow evening for Brasil.  We'll be at the
World Junior Teams Championships, and can be reached there in an emergency
thru  anna@ecats.co.uk. until the 18th of August.

At least it'll keep me from antagonizing anyone on BLML for the nonce.

Kojak
--part1_d7.a122678.28998a13_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 Aug 2 04:28:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71IS1C11341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:28:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.san.rr.com (smtp3.san.rr.com [24.25.195.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f71IRtt11337 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:27:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f71IQ2j23046 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009001c11ab7$375a80e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6j9emt4apcbbm9p652l7l6cc314j34329r@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:16:06 -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: "Brian Meadows" > Marvin French wrote:> > > > >From: "Brian Meadows" < > > > >> 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. > >> > >We seem to have a semantic problem. The hesitation brought into his > >mind the notion that he should pass, something he would not normally > >have done. That means (in one sense) that the pass was suggested to > >him by the hesitation. > > > > In one sense, yes, but when the original post explicitly stated > that this was north's effort to "bend over backwards" not to use > the UI, then I think the correct sense is clear enough. Yes, the > pass was suggested to north by the UI - suggested because it was > his best effort *NOT* to take advantage of the UI. > > The way it reads to me is that North thought south's hesitation > suggested that he should bid, and therefore he passed. How many > times do we hear that "It is not sufficient to make the bid that > you were going to make absent the UI"? You may question north's > judgement as to whether 3D was not the correct bid even with the > UI, but as others have pointed out, the UI can't *simultaneously* > suggest both 3D and pass, north has to be able to do one or the > other without penalty. You can't (IMHO, at least) enforce a > ruling on north which says that the action suggested by the UI > varies with partner's holding. > > Really, Marv, what you say above simply can't hold water - > otherwise any time a player deliberately takes the non-suggested > alternative in order to try to avoid using UI, you'd nail him > because the action he took was suggested to him by the UI! We'd > be in a situation where you DID have to "bid what you were going > to bid absent the UI". > I haven't made myself clear, my fault. Your position (and David Burns', and no doubt most BLMLers) is perfectly reasonable, but I mildly disagree with it. To me L16 means that I should not take an action that could appear to have been influenced by UI. If there is only one logical action, I take that regardless. If more than one, I take one that no one could think was influenced by the UI. Taking an obviously illogical action, perhaps to teach partner a lesson, is neither required nor acceptable, the way I see it. Doing so introduces more randomness into a duplicate pair game that is random enough, maybe too much so. In rubber bridge or one-on-one team play, no problem, do what you want. 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 Aug 2 07:52:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f71LpPi21440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:51:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f71LpIt21436 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 07:51:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cfgcs@localhost) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) id f71Llkw22161; Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:47:46 -0500 (CDT) From: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu Message-Id: <200108012147.f71Llkw22161@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - To: elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:47:46 -0500 (CDT) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> from "Eric Landau" at Jul 31, 2001 12:11:31 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL0] 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 My apologies. I know it is a violation of netiquette to quote long portions of someone else's posts just for the purposes of saying "I agree", but I cannot help doing so here. > >On 31 Jul 2001, at 9:15, Eric Landau wrote: > > > >What does to play bridge mean? imho it means to play a card game > >regulated by some rules (or you if like it more, laws). But here > >we see the typical sad situation of bridge, several 1000-2000 > >master pointer that didn't take the time to read *once* the > >rules of the game they are playing. > > Why is this a sad situation? It is not sad that one may drive a car > without having studied the motor vehicle code, nor that one may pay > one's taxes without having read the entire tax code. > > The vast majority of players understand the basic concepts of "bridge" > but neither have read nor desire to read the official Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge. They come to play, and expect that when something > irregular happens (whether it is their or their opponents' fault) the > laws will deal with it more or less fairly. That is a good thing, for > if we impose an expectation of an understanding and mastery of the > laws, we shall have no more than a few thousand duplicate players world > wide. The laws should be written to support those players' > expectations, i.e. so that when something irregular happens, it will be > dealt with more or less fairly. > > It does not and will not, however, occur to those players who have not > studied TFLB that when they make a bad call and wish that they had done > something different that this is "something irregular" for which the > law prescribes a "remedy". They do not realize that there are > particular circumstances in which the law says that "to play bridge" > includes the ability to call for a "do-over" when they make a bidding > error. While L25B is certainly "bridge" according to TFLB, it is not > at all in conformity with "bridge" as understood by the majority who > choose to trust the laws rather than master them. In other words, not only must we try to make sure that irregularities are dealt with fairly, but we must also try to make sure that what counts as an irregularity in the first place corresponds at least approximately to the expectation of the players. > To me, when "bridge" as set forth the TFLB is radically different from > "bridge" as understood by the vast majority of its players, it is the > former rather than the latter that we should seek to change. Amen. I think this all very nicely summarizes my basic approach to evaluating the laws of bridge. There are millions of people who know fully well what 'bridge' is all about, and the job of the lawmakers is to create a coherent set of written principles by which games of 'bridge' may be adjudicated fairly. Any change in the laws that alters a fundamental aspect of the game in ways the players would not anticipate is almost certainly a bad thing, and should be considered only as a last resort, and then must be extensively and publicly announced, explained, and defended. L25b is a bad law, because it introduced a change that players do not expect, there was no compelling reason for such a change, and the change has not been publicized well enough for the average player to expect to know about it. But Eric comments go far beyond L25b--and I agree with him completely. > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 16:09:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7267XN23685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 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 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 f7267Rt23681 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:07:27 +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 QAA07734 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:11:32 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:54:36 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian National Championships Appeal 3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:50:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/08/2001 03:58:34 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote (in the thread Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid -): [snip] >The vast majority of players understand the basic >concepts of "bridge" but neither have read nor desire >to read the official Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. >They come to play, and expect that when something >irregular happens (whether it is their or their >opponents' fault) the laws will deal with it more or >less fairly. [snip] In a secondary Swiss teams at the Australian National Championships, pard opened 1NT (weak). RHO overcalled 2D, I passed, and LHO started to think. 2D should have been alerted, since it promised both majors. But LHO had *come to play* and often forgot to alert. Now, trying to be helpful, RHO indicated that her own bid should have been alerted. She, too, had *come to play*, and had not bothered to memorise L75. The TD was summoned, he required play to continue, and the opponents bid and made 4S. Now the TD judged that LHO's alertlessness was not due to thinking 2D was natural. Therefore, the TD ruled *more or less fairly* that the score should not be adjusted. Followers of the Burn Death Penalty would have used only the *objective* evidence (LHO not alerting & RHO reminding LHO that 2D was conventional) to adjust the opponents' contract to 2D in their 3-2 fit, down several. So on those grounds I optimistically appealed. The AC also correctly determined that LHO had remembered the system but forgotten to alert. So they too *more or less fairly* let the score stand. But the AC eccentrically imposed a VP fine on RHO for her improper self-alert. This meant that RHO's team was disadvantaged merely because I was optimistic - if there had been no appeal, the opponents' team would have been 3 VP better off. The Bulletin Editor, Nick Hughes, expressed the hope that appeals targeted merely at getting opponents fined would not proliferate in Australia (as they apparently have done in other jurisdictions). Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 18:39:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f728bB023818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:37:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f728b5t23814 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:37:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2246 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 08:34:01 -0000 Received: from pec-34-192.tnt1.f.uunet.de (HELO www) (149.225.34.192) by mail.gmx.net (mail06) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 08:34:01 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:31:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Message-ID: <3B692BF8.12102.30CD28@localhost> In-reply-to: <200108012147.f71Llkw22161@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> from "Eric Landau" at Jul 31, 2001 12:11:31 PM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 1 Aug 2001, at 16:47, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > On 31 Jul 2001, at 9:15, Eric Landau wrote: > > To me, when "bridge" as set forth the TFLB is radically > > different from "bridge" as understood by the vast majority of > > its players, it is the former rather than the latter that we > > should seek to change. > > Amen. I think this all very nicely summarizes my basic approach > to evaluating the laws of bridge. There are millions of people > who know fully well what 'bridge' is all about, and the job of > the lawmakers is to create a coherent set of written principles > by which games of 'bridge' may be adjudicated fairly. Sorry I don't get this philosophical approach. As Plato you say that there is a perfect form of bridge as higher entity but our try to describe it is far less then perfect (or that the perfect bridge is in the DNA of million of players). imho Bridge is a game invented by humans, what millions of people believe bridge is, is what they have been told by other people. Lets suppose that since Vanderbilds days you had told to every player " ... and there is a Law 25B", millions of people would fully know nowadays that that is bridge. I am not defending the law 25B, I am talking in general. Just need an help to see where the deity Bridge is, till then I will believe bridge is only the set of the actual rules. Where do I go wrong? ciao stefan PS sorry for my poor english -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 19:48:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f729mCK23899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:48:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f729m5t23895 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:48:05 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA23516; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:45:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 02 11:43:36 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 <01K6NO92BJEI000DR6@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 11:44:58 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 11:45:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 11:44:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Could have known? To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@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 Eric Landau wrote: > > If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players > that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the > truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it > will be taken away. > I got lost during this conversation. We are still talking about the 3C opening (from East), long hesitation pass, pass, pass. It appears that north has a hand with which pass is not normal. Let us assume this is played in a pairs 20 tables event and at each table the opening is 3C. At 19 tables the auction goes pass pass and now north makes a call other than pass. The auction given takes place at the 20th table and asking north for his decision to pass he will tell you that the hesitation made him decide to pass, otherwise he would have made another call. It appears that this table gets the top on the board. Is this what we want? Or do you say that you are not happy but can't do anything. When you say that L16 normally is not used for such a case you are right but does that mean that it can't be used for such a case? I don't think so. Give this case to a judge with the facts as described above and ask him whether he judges that the action taken could demonstrably have been suggested by the hesitation, what do you think his answer is? There is another condition, I know: pass needs to be a logical alternative. This is disputable, if the other 19 do not pass, you need to be brave to decide so (now we could use the ACBL definition saying that a call being considered is a logical alternative). But if three of the others had passed also, this condition seems fulfilled as well. And why shouldn't we adjust the score then? So I don't agree with those who say that we can't apply L 16 here. 'demonstrably suggested' should be tested by using the screen test: put a screen in between and ask what call would have been made. If the real call differs it is demonstrably suggested and law 16 applies. And the phrase: 'if you get a good result it will be taken away' suggests injustice, but is a wrong phrase. It happens only if law 16 is applicable. Mind you I am not talking about the case where south uses the hesitation to have his partner silenced. We can handle those cases easily. Throw them out. The main question is: do NS deserve their top if the case is as described, north agreeing even that his call was based on UI. My answer is a clear 'no'. And if you still think that L16 can't be used for such a case, explain to me. If you can convince the LC we have to take care for it more explicitly. You understand that this view is just my personal opinion, it is quite possible that the LC is already convinced. 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 Aug 2 20:08:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72A8E224852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:08:14 +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 f72A87t24830 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:08:07 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA18187; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:05:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 02 12:03:40 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 <01K6NOWXXXPI000DEB@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 12:04:13 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 12:04:28 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 12:04:12 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - To: "'stefan filonardi'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DD@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 > I am not defending the law 25B, I am talking in general. Just > need an help to see where the deity Bridge is, till then I will > believe bridge is only the set of the actual rules. Where do I > go wrong? > > ciao stefan > We all agree with you, I assume. The message was not to promote playing according to their own set of rules but to get the existing set changed, kicking 25B out of it for example. This is a Carthago-project for some of us: and destroy it we will! I have to object the suggestion that 25B was invented in '97 without having the time to explain the world its creation. The laws concerning changes of calls changes quite often, but already in '87 it was possible to change a deliberate made call. A player just could do it and so could get away from a stupid call. At that time partner was obliged to pass, so practically spoken the 'offender' had to decide the contract to be played. In '97 the marvellous invention of average-minus as a penalty in stead of the pass by partner came in. And furthermore we decided that it was not fair that a player knowing the laws could change his call by just doing so and a more inexperienced player, asking permission from the director to change his call, was not permitted to do so. An equal rights movement it was, Eric will love it. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 21:44:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72BhSL07520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:43:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72BhKt07504 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:11:59 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:11:57 +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 Simple question. Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? -- 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 Aug 2 22:09:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72C90E10806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:09:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72C8tt10802 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:08:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.136.196] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SHEg-0003vt-00; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:05:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:04:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > I got lost during this conversation. We are still talking about the 3C > opening (from East), long hesitation pass, pass, pass. It appears that north > has a hand with which pass is not normal. Let us assume this is played in a > pairs 20 tables event and at each table the opening is 3C. At 19 tables the > auction goes pass pass and now north makes a call other than pass. The > auction given takes place at the 20th table and asking north for his > decision to pass he will tell you that the hesitation made him decide to > pass, otherwise he would have made another call. It appears that this table > gets the top on the board. I came somewhat late to this thread, so I am guessing what has happened - presumably South had a hand where he didn't want North to bid, so that North's pass turned out to be a good idea. If this is so, then it is the first actual case of a "reverse hesitation". > Is this what we want? Or do you say that you are not happy but can't do > anything. Oh, you can do anything, as long as it's legal. But be clear that if you use Law 16, you are saying in effect: "We believe that South's slow pass conveyed to his partner the unauthorised information that he did not want his partner to bid, and that this information caused North to select a pass over some other logical alternative". > When you say that L16 normally is not used for such a case you are right but > does that mean that it can't be used for such a case? I don't think so. Of course it can. If your belief is that South's tempo conveyed unauthorised information, you can use the Law dealing with unauthorised information. However, you must be careful how you proceed in this case, because you are not protected by the Laws in the usual way. A slow pass over an opening 3C "normally" suggests that the passer has some marginal hand with which he might take a positive action, and that he would not be unhappy should his partner choose to take some positive action opposite. But you can arrange to play slow passes as bad hands, fast passes as marginal ones if you like. They're both illegal, and they're both covered by the same Law. The trouble is that they are not covered by the same Law in quite the same way, and here is where the major difficulty arises. Normally, when we disallow an action under Law 16, we do not have to say to the players: "You have knowingly used an illegal form of communication" (or, what is the same thing, "You are cheats"). Instead, we can shelter behind "demonstrably suggested" and "logical alternative". But if we disallow *this* action under Law 16, what we are saying to the players is in effect: "You have knowingly used an illegal form of communication, in that South has hesitated for no demonstrable bridge reason - thus, we find that the only motive behind his hesitation was to convey to North that he should *pass* a marginal hand". > And the phrase: 'if you get a good result it will be taken away' suggests > injustice, but is a wrong phrase. It happens only if law 16 is applicable. > Mind you I am not talking about the case where south uses the hesitation to > have his partner silenced. We can handle those cases easily. Throw them out. On the contrary. We *are* talking about a case where South has, in effect, been accused of using the hesitation to silence his partner. I agree with you - he should be thrown out, if this is indeed what he has done. And, if you use L16 to rule against him, you are in effect ruling that this is what he has done. > The main question is: do NS deserve their top if the case is as described, > north agreeing even that his call was based on UI. No, he didn't. He said that his call was based on what he perceived to be his ethical responsibilities. He was trying to play the game according to Law 73. Or, of course, he was cheating, because his "methods" were that South's slow pass was a signoff. You can choose either, but you can't choose both. > My answer is a clear 'no'. And if you still think that L16 can't be used for > such a case, explain to me. If you can convince the LC we have to take care > for it more explicitly. You don't have to take care of it "more explicitly". If you believe that South's action was a deliberate attempt to convey to North that North should pass with some hands on which he would otherwise act, then there is a breach of Law 73B2, which I need not remind you begins: "The gravest possible offence...". Such a breach can of course be dealt with under Law 16. If, on the other hand, you believe that South's action was a legitimate consideration of a genuine problem, then you must regard North's action in failing to act with a marginal hand as the proper course. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 22:12:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72CCb810828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:12:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72CCUt10824 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:12:31 +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 OAA27589; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:06:15 +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 OAA08590; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:06:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <002301c11b4c$1a3f3920$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:10:20 +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: Eric Landau > Why is this a sad situation? It is not sad that one may drive a car > without having studied the motor vehicle code AG : it is. Mercifully, bridge crashes are not as deadly as vehicular crashes. But it is said that about 30% of the latter could be avoided through sound knowledge of the Code, and another 50% with basic observance of it. > The vast majority of players understand the basic concepts of "bridge" > but neither have read nor desire to read the official Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge. AG : but they should have been taught the basics of ethics and appropriate behaviour. Alas, this is seldom the case in beginners courses. They come to play, and expect that when something > irregular happens (whether it is their or their opponents' fault) the > laws will deal with it more or less fairly. That is a good thing, for > if we impose an expectation of an understanding and mastery of the > laws, we shall have no more than a few thousand duplicate players world > wide. The laws should be written to support those players' > expectations, i.e. so that when something irregular happens, it will be > dealt with more or less fairly. AG : but how is anyone supposed to know there has been a breech of the Laws (thus prompting a TD call) if one doesn't know them at least succinctly ? 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 Aug 2 22:18:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72CIGV10840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:18:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72CI9t10836 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:18:10 +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 OAA28470; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:13:11 +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 OAA12399; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:13:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00ae01c11b4d$11fb5400$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6j9emt4apcbbm9p652l7l6cc314j34329r@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:17:16 +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: Brian Meadows > > >I use this analogy: The actions of a pretty woman might suggest > >something to me that is not inherent in those actions. AG : sorry, there is a Law against that. L74C5. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 2 22:49:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72Cn1Z10868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:49:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72Cmst10864 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:48:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f72CjsK56411 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010802075608.00b0eb00@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, 02 Aug 2001 08:47:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Could have known? In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:44 AM 8/2/01, Kooijman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players > > that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the > > truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it > > will be taken away. > >I got lost during this conversation. We are still talking about the 3C >opening (from East), long hesitation pass, pass, pass. It appears that >north >has a hand with which pass is not normal. Let us assume this is played >in a >pairs 20 tables event and at each table the opening is 3C. At 19 >tables the >auction goes pass pass and now north makes a call other than pass. The >auction given takes place at the 20th table and asking north for his >decision to pass he will tell you that the hesitation made him decide to >pass, otherwise he would have made another call. It appears that this >table >gets the top on the board. > >Is this what we want? Or do you say that you are not happy but can't do >anything. What we want is that players who have UI from partner "not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". If we are satisfied that North has done this, we should be happy, and he should get whatever result his proper and correct action has brought forth at the table. >When you say that L16 normally is not used for such a case you are >right but >does that mean that it can't be used for such a case? I don't think so. >Give this case to a judge with the facts as described above and ask him >whether he judges that the action taken could demonstrably have been >suggested by the hesitation, what do you think his answer is? There is >another condition, I know: pass needs to be a logical alternative. This is >disputable, if the other 19 do not pass, you need to be brave to decide so >(now we could use the ACBL definition saying that a call being >considered is >a logical alternative). But if three of the others had passed also, this >condition seems fulfilled as well. And why shouldn't we adjust the score >then? We shouldn't adjust the score because there has been no infraction of law. South is permitted to huddle, which, however, imposes the constraints of L16A on North. North has acted properly within those constraints, following L16A to the letter. Neither has committed an infraction, leaving us no basis for adjustment. >So I don't agree with those who say that we can't apply L 16 here. >'demonstrably suggested' should be tested by using the screen test: put a >screen in between and ask what call would have been made. If the real call >differs it is demonstrably suggested and law 16 applies. The "screen test" would reduce L16A to what it is popularly conceived to be, i.e. requiring North to "bid whatever he would have bid without the UI". But we know that this is wrong; L16A requires him to do more than that. It can, and often does, require him to take some other call, whenever what "he would have bid without the UI" was demonstrably suggested by it. >And the phrase: 'if you get a good result it will be taken away' suggests >injustice, but is a wrong phrase. It happens only if law 16 is >applicable. >Mind you I am not talking about the case where south uses the >hesitation to >have his partner silenced. We can handle those cases easily. Throw >them out. It shouldn't happen whenever "law 16 is applicable". It should happen only when L16 is *violated*. That has not happened here. >The main question is: do NS deserve their top if the case is as described, >north agreeing even that his call was based on UI. Yes, they do. North treated the UI according to L16A, as he was required to do. That led him to take an anti-percentage action rather than the percentage action that was "demonstrably suggested" by the UI. But sometimes an anti-percentage action works out better than the percentage action. When this happens, the law has been satisfied, and the player, who properly followed the law, deserves his result. North's call may, in some sense, have been "based" on UI, but it was not "suggested" by it. L16A only prohibits calls in the latter category. >My answer is a clear 'no'. And if you still think that L16 can't be >used for >such a case, explain to me. If you can convince the LC we have to take >care >for it more explicitly. >You understand that this view is just my personal opinion, it is quite >possible that the LC is already convinced. I'll try. L16 permits an adjustment when North has failed to follow the constraints of L16A. Let us assume that North had only two LAs: pass or 3D. IMO, had he bid 3D, and gotten a better score than he would have by passing, we would have no hesitation in adjusting the score on the grounds that partner's huddle demonstrably suggested 3D over pass. That can be argued; if you believe that the huddle demonstrably suggested pass over 3D, you should adjust, but should not be willing to adjust in the hypothetical case when North bids 3D. You can believe that 3D was demonstrably suggested over pass, or that pass was demonstrably suggested over 3D, or neither, but it is logically impossible for both to be true simultaneously. You cannot believe that whichever action works out better was ipso facto demonstrably suggested over the other. Adjusting a score requires two independent conditions: infraction and damage. Neither L16 nor any other law allows an adjustment based on damage alone; there must have been an infraction. I do not believe that L16A is (or was intended to be) written in such a way as to create situations in which any action a player takes violates it. We can't require players to bend over backwards while remaining perfectly vertical throughout. 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 Aug 2 23:28:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72DSY411213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:28:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f72DSRt11209 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:28:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11239 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 13:25:23 -0000 Received: from pec-35-130.tnt1.f.uunet.de (HELO www) (149.225.35.130) by mail.gmx.net (mp006-rz3) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 13:25:23 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:22:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Message-ID: <3B697039.27200.13B765A@localhost> In-reply-to: <200108012147.f71Llkw22161@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> from "Eric Landau" at Jul 31, 2001 12:11:31 PM X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 1 Aug 2001, at 16:47, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > In other words, not only must we try to make sure that > irregularities are dealt with fairly, but we must also try to > make sure that what counts as an irregularity in the first place > corresponds at least approximately to the expectation of the > players. delicious, again this wonderful idea that the expectation of what is irregular is somewhere in our DNA ;-) ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:13:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72EBZQ11263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:11:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f72EBRt11259 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:11:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 21638 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 14:08:24 -0000 Received: from pec-92-104.tnt5.f.uunet.de (HELO www) (149.225.92.104) by mail.gmx.net (mp006-rz3) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 14:08:24 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:05:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Message-ID: <3B697A59.1352.1630427@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Martin, without any guarantee ;-), erring we learn the most. On 2 Aug 2001, at 13:11, Martin Sinot wrote: > Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and > instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. > Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt or play > the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? Dummy's card is played (law 45C4), the irregularity happend so dummy cannot try to prevent as written in law 42B2. Now it is eminent interest of the opponents to draw attention to the irregularity because there will be *no penality* for a revoke done by dummy (law 64B3). ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:16:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72EGle11275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:16:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72EGft11271 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:16:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA02636; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:13:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 02 16:12:11 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 <01K6NXL6G1PW000E39@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:12:50 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:13:04 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:12:47 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - To: "'stefan filonardi'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8E2@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 > > > Hello, > > On 1 Aug 2001, at 16:47, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > In other words, not only must we try to make sure that > > irregularities are dealt with fairly, but we must also try to > > make sure that what counts as an irregularity in the first place > > corresponds at least approximately to the expectation of the > > players. > > delicious, again this wonderful idea that the expectation of > what is irregular is somewhere in our DNA ;-) At last a philosopher. You are right, our genes seem to be oriented on just surviving. No moral consciousness other than with this same goal (I am sorry). That is why the director should have a gun. Still there is some merit in trying to get the laws as close as possible to the feeling of equity players have. But how far do we go? Ever met a player who did agree with 2 penalty tricks for a revoke when the revoke itself didn't give him an extra trick? There are players who want directors just to restore equity for any irregularity. I am willing to go that far, but only if we get rid of appeals procedures. And play will get more expensive since we will need a lot of extra TD's. And some players might have expectations in the financial part of our game as well. ton > ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:23:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72ENL611298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:23:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72ENFt11294 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:23:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts83.eiu.edu [139.67.16.83]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f72EJoQ25516 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:19:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010802092739.007c9280@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:27:39 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - In-Reply-To: <3B692BF8.12102.30CD28@localhost> References: <200108012147.f71Llkw22161@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@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 10:31 AM 8/2/01 +0200, stefan filonardi wrote: >Hello, Greetings. :) >On 1 Aug 2001, at 16:47, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > >> On 31 Jul 2001, at 9:15, Eric Landau wrote: >> > To me, when "bridge" as set forth the TFLB is radically >> > different from "bridge" as understood by the vast majority of >> > its players, it is the former rather than the latter that we >> > should seek to change. >> >> Amen. I think this all very nicely summarizes my basic approach >> to evaluating the laws of bridge. There are millions of people >> who know fully well what 'bridge' is all about, and the job of >> the lawmakers is to create a coherent set of written principles >> by which games of 'bridge' may be adjudicated fairly. > >Sorry I don't get this philosophical approach. As Plato you say >that there is a perfect form of bridge as higher entity but our >try to describe it is far less then perfect (or that the perfect >bridge is in the DNA of million of players). Well, I am one of the few people whose philosophical views [not philosophy of bridge, but real philosophy] are such that calling me a Platonist is no real insult. :) But that isn't what I meant. Bridge has been played for many years now, by many, many players, and virtually all duplicate players have played rubber bridge before joining. The vast majority of 'bridge teachers' are not accredited professionals teaching classes, but rather people who have played the game before teaching their children, co-workers, or friends how to play. Hence, the thousands and thousands of bridge players around the world have a fairly similar common notion of what the game is all about. That knowledge did not come from reading the Laws. Many of these people couldn't really understand the nuances of the Laws if they did RTFLB. They know _bridge_, and they expect the laws to simply detail the proceedures of dealing with the situations where something happens that isn't 'right'. >imho Bridge is a game invented by humans, what millions of >people believe bridge is, is what they have been told by other I agree completely. >people. Lets suppose that since Vanderbilds days you had told to >every player " ... and there is a Law 25B", millions of people >would fully know nowadays that that is bridge. Indeed, and if the idea that you could 'take back' a stupid bid had been part of the game from the beginning, or even from fairly early on in the process, then it would be part of common-bridge today. But it wasn't, and so it isn't. I'll bet less than 1% of all bridge players know that they can take back a bid this way. Further, I'll bet that if you took 100 bridge players and paid them to read TFLB from cover to cover, at least 2/3 of them wouldn't realize the implications of L25b, buried as it is in the mountain of other Laws they would be struggling to assimilate. So L25b is a bad law because it's a law that virtually no bridge players would have been taught to expect. That is, not only do they not know the details of how the law works, they don't even know that there is any such possibility. So it's a law that primarily benefits the BL's. That's a bad thing. >I am not defending the law 25B, I am talking in general. Just >need an help to see where the deity Bridge is, till then I will >believe bridge is only the set of the actual rules. Where do I >go wrong? You said it yourself. "What millions of people believe bridge is, is what they have been told by other people." They don't learn bridge by reading the Laws--I'll bet nobody on the face of the earth ever sat down cold to TFLB and learned bridge that way. Significant divergence between bridge-as-told-by-other-people and bridge-as-written is a bad thing. >ciao stefan > >PS >sorry for my poor english It's better English than some of my students. :) Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:26:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72EQDS11310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:26:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f72EQ7t11306 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:26:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.103]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f72EN6j20374 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:23:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B683FB7.B791550D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:43:19 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 11:58 AM 7/31/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >But South may not be, and we need a law to deal with him. > > > >Well, that one exists as well : L73B1. > >Or even L73B2. > > But there is nothing in the original post to suggest that this is the > case. Isn't there ? Then why was it brought up, twice ? Nobody told us the reason why South needed a minute to think. > I feel rather strongly that there must be at least some, albeit > not necessarily conclusive, evidence that South was trying to "do > something" before we invoke L73 in this case. Which is why I want to ask South what he was thinking about. It's up to the TD to do this, and determine whether he is speaking the truth. > It seems pretty clear > that had North taken a bid, and gained thereby, we would have had > little hesitation in adjusting the score. Given South's hand, I think it highly unlikely that any bid by North (save a TO-double, and maybe not even that = an SOS redouble is surely next) might benefit NS. > As other have pointed out, > we cannot support penalizing a pair any time someone hesitates and his > partner finds the winning call regardless of what that call was, else > we make it a redressable infraction just to hesitate. > Pointed out, and agreed upon. This is not a L16 case. L73B1 and 2 are needed. Which brings us back to the original question. What next. Can we simply jump from L73B to L12 ? I believe we can, but others might disagree. > If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players > that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the > truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it > will be taken away. > Of course not. We congratulate North for his adherence to L16. Then we castize South for breaking L73. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:27:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72ERQg11324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f72ERJt11318 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-38.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.38]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f72EOLj20787 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:24:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B683FB7.B791550D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:43:19 +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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 11:58 AM 7/31/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >But South may not be, and we need a law to deal with him. > > > >Well, that one exists as well : L73B1. > >Or even L73B2. > > But there is nothing in the original post to suggest that this is the > case. Isn't there ? Then why was it brought up, twice ? Nobody told us the reason why South needed a minute to think. > I feel rather strongly that there must be at least some, albeit > not necessarily conclusive, evidence that South was trying to "do > something" before we invoke L73 in this case. Which is why I want to ask South what he was thinking about. It's up to the TD to do this, and determine whether he is speaking the truth. > It seems pretty clear > that had North taken a bid, and gained thereby, we would have had > little hesitation in adjusting the score. Given South's hand, I think it highly unlikely that any bid by North (save a TO-double, and maybe not even that = an SOS redouble is surely next) might benefit NS. > As other have pointed out, > we cannot support penalizing a pair any time someone hesitates and his > partner finds the winning call regardless of what that call was, else > we make it a redressable infraction just to hesitate. > Pointed out, and agreed upon. This is not a L16 case. L73B1 and 2 are needed. Which brings us back to the original question. What next. Can we simply jump from L73B to L12 ? I believe we can, but others might disagree. > If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players > that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the > truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it > will be taken away. > Of course not. We congratulate North for his adherence to L16. Then we castize South for breX-Mozilla-Status: 0009erman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72ERfm11346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f72ERPt11323 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-38.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.38]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f72EORj20831 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:24:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B693B39.1BFCFF80@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 13:36:25 +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> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <007101c11a00$818b5980$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <6j9emt4apcbbm9p652l7l6cc314j34329r@4ax.com> <009001c11ab7$375a80e0$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: > > > > I haven't made myself clear, my fault. Your position (and David > Burns', and no doubt most BLMLers) is perfectly reasonable, but I > mildly disagree with it. > > To me L16 means that I should not take an action that could appear > to have been influenced by UI. If there is only one logical action, > I take that regardless. If more than one, I take one that no one > could think was influenced by the UI. Taking an obviously illogical > action, perhaps to teach partner a lesson, is neither required nor > acceptable, the way I see it. Doing so introduces more randomness > into a duplicate pair game that is random enough, maybe too much so. > In rubber bridge or one-on-one team play, no problem, do what you > want. > You are right Marv, but you are posting to the wrong thread then. In the case at hand, we might argue that passing is not a LA. Then indeed when this North does pass, out of some overstretched application of L16, we might be able to use L16 against him. But there are many cases out there, when passing and bidding are both to be considered LA. Then we cannot use L16. We've settled that. And yet we need something to stop south from acting in the way that we might suspect this south has done. And that is not L16, but L73. So you see Marv, we've just combined to add two more posts to this thread that don't add a thing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:28:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72ERkL11347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72ERTt11330 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-38.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.38]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f72EOUj20845 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:24:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B69420A.1B40D3C4@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:05:30 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@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 Ton (of course) knows what this is all about, and so I'll be happy to comply with his desire to try and explain why L16 cannot be used. "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players > > that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the > > truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it > > will be taken away. > > > > I got lost during this conversation. We are still talking about the 3C > opening (from East), long hesitation pass, pass, pass. It appears that north > has a hand with which pass is not normal. Let us assume this is played in a > pairs 20 tables event and at each table the opening is 3C. At 19 tables the > auction goes pass pass and now north makes a call other than pass. The > auction given takes place at the 20th table and asking north for his > decision to pass he will tell you that the hesitation made him decide to > pass, otherwise he would have made another call. It appears that this table > gets the top on the board. > That is the first example, and it does not teach us anything, as L16 seems to apply. We need better examples, but Ton does provide some below. > Is this what we want? Or do you say that you are not happy but can't do > anything. Of course it is not what we want. But we are trying to show you that L16 cannot be used to stop this. So examples in which L16 does apply don't teach us nothin'. > When you say that L16 normally is not used for such a case you are right but > does that mean that it can't be used for such a case? I don't think so. Of course it can be used. But when we get further, we shall see that there are cases where it cannot. What then are we to say ? Sorry, we don't like what you are doing, but L16 does not prohibit this - no, we go and look for another law. > Give this case to a judge with the facts as described above and ask him > whether he judges that the action taken could demonstrably have been > suggested by the hesitation, what do you think his answer is? There is > another condition, I know: pass needs to be a logical alternative. This is > disputable, if the other 19 do not pass, you need to be brave to decide so > (now we could use the ACBL definition saying that a call being considered is > a logical alternative). But if three of the others had passed also, this > condition seems fulfilled as well. And why shouldn't we adjust the score > then? I don't think pass needs to be a LA. The hesitation would normally suggest bidding, so bidding is not allowed if passing is a LA. But passing is allowed, even if it is not a LA. Sometimes a player may prefer to pass rather than spend his time to the TD and AC in convincing them that pass is not a LA. That is not forbidden. > So I don't agree with those who say that we can't apply L 16 here. So far, you have not given any reason to apply L16 even in this case. > 'demonstrably suggested' should be tested by using the screen test: This is the crunch of the L16 argument. Only actions that are "demonstrably suggested" by the UI, are forbidden (unless there are no LA's to then). So we need to know what actions are "demonstrably suggested". Now it cannot be fair to say to a player "your partner has a hand with which he wants you to pass, so passing is a suggested action". North does not know which hand South has. So if we use L16 in this case, we are in fact telling North that he is no longer allowed to choose any bid. If he bids, and this turns out right, bidding is the clear "suggested action", and if he passes and that turns out right, then we use the same law. That cannot be correct, especially since the word "demonstrably" has been added. How can you demonstrate that passing was suggested in this case ? > put a > screen in between and ask what call would have been made. If the real call > differs it is demonstrably suggested and law 16 applies. > By that argument, every time my partner hesitates, and I choose the LA that was not "demonstrably suggested" (following L16), you rule that it was "demonstrably suggested" because I made it. That cannot be right. > And the phrase: 'if you get a good result it will be taken away' suggests > injustice, but is a wrong phrase. It happens only if law 16 is applicable. Circular reasoning. You apply L16, and then you say that it is only injust if L16 is applicable. We are in fact saying that L16 is not applicable, because it would lead to injustice. It is very strange to see a European advocating a form of "if it hesitates, shoot it". > Mind you I am not talking about the case where south uses the hesitation to > have his partner silenced. We can handle those cases easily. Throw them out. > That's L73B2 - I think L73B1 should also be applicable, so that we can say that South "could have known" and we don't have to call him a cheat and still rule against him. > The main question is: do NS deserve their top if the case is as described, > north agreeing even that his call was based on UI. North says that he has followed L16. That cannot be an illegal use of UI, since it is the action the laws force on someone. Opponents bid 4He. Partner hesitates and doubles. Without the hesitation, I would take out to 4Sp. With the hesitation, I judge that passing is a LA and I pass. Surely this cannot be illegal ? Bidding 4Sp is illegal in this case, but passing cannot be ! > My answer is a clear 'no'. And if you still think that L16 can't be used for > such a case, explain to me. If you can convince the LC we have to take care > for it more explicitly. I think the main point is the "demonstrably suggested" bit. A player must be allowed to say : "the UI suggests doing this, so I do the other". > You understand that this view is just my personal opinion, it is quite > possible that the LC is already convinced. > I am very happy to see you take a personal interest in this matter. But Ton, is it really that important ? Don't you agree that L73B1 is enough to stop South from doing this ? Aren't we allowed to jump from there to L12C2/3, without going through L16? I would even accept a L12C3 in which the pass is weighted, in this case (reasoning : North isn't barred from passing by L16 - South has made the infraction, and without that infraction, the final result can be based on some percentage of North passing and bidding). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72ERmf11348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f72ERVt11332 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-38.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.38]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f72EOXj20861 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:24:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B69435B.8661DA1F@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:11:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > I am not defending the law 25B, I am talking in general. Just > > need an help to see where the deity Bridge is, till then I will > > believe bridge is only the set of the actual rules. Where do I > > go wrong? > > > > ciao stefan > > > > We all agree with you, I assume. The message was not to promote playing > according to their own set of rules but to get the existing set changed, > kicking 25B out of it for example. This is a Carthago-project for some of > us: and destroy it we will! > L25 delendum est. Yes L25 - A and B. What are we using L25A for, these days : mechanical errors. We can do that without need for a L25A. We just need to write, into the technical regulations for each type of bidding, the way it has to be made and a sensible point at which the bid becomes "made". Take the Swedish bidding-box regulations, for example. They are stricter than the laws, but if you know that you are expected to check the top bidding card before releasing it on the table, then you need no further protection from L25. I realize that this means we need to write technical regulations for spoken bidding as well, but that should not stop us from then saying "piece touché". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:28:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72ERr011351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f72ERYt11338 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:27:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-38.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.38]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f72EOZj20875 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:24:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6944D1.CEF439F2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 14:17:21 +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] Australian National Championships Appeal 3 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > [snip] > > > Followers of the Burn Death Penalty would have used only > the *objective* evidence (LHO not alerting & RHO reminding > LHO that 2D was conventional) to adjust the opponents' > contract to 2D in their 3-2 fit, down several. So on > those grounds I optimistically appealed. > > The AC also correctly determined that LHO had remembered > the system but forgotten to alert. So they too *more or > less fairly* let the score stand. > > But the AC eccentrically imposed a VP fine on RHO for > her improper self-alert. This meant that RHO's team was > disadvantaged merely because I was optimistic - if > there had been no appeal, the opponents' team would > have been 3 VP better off. > > The Bulletin Editor, Nick Hughes, expressed the hope > that appeals targeted merely at getting opponents > fined would not proliferate in Australia (as they > apparently have done in other jurisdictions). > Nick Hughes is barking up the wrong tree. It was not your intention to appeal so as to see opponents fined, you were hoping for a better result. Rather, Nich Hughes should tell TD's and AC's to get their act together, and not impose different standards for penalizing, just because there is an appeal. If the AC determines that this is heavy enough to penalize, they should ask the TD to penalize harsher in future, and allow him to decide whether or not the tournament is served best by penalizing this particular instance - if he did not penalize other similar instances, this one should not be penalized either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:35:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72EY7r11396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:34:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsfep13-int.chello.nl (amsfep13-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.23] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72EXxt11391 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:34:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsfep13-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20010802142751.GRPI24832.amsfep13-int.chello.nl@witz> for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:27:51 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010802163051.010f8a00@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:30:51 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes In-Reply-To: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200 .168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:11 PM 02-08-01 +0200, you wrote: >Simple question. > >Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and >instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. >Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt >or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? > > sure, het tries to prevent an irregularity i presume (an established revoke) regards, anton -- >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/ > > Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 00:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72EaoN11412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:36:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72Eait11408 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:36:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts83.eiu.edu [139.67.16.83]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f72EUgQ28386; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:30:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010802093832.007cd7d0@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:38:32 -0500 To: "Alain Gottcheiner" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - In-Reply-To: <002301c11b4c$1a3f3920$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1> <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:10 PM 8/2/01 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > > >> The vast majority of players understand the basic concepts of "bridge" >> but neither have read nor desire to read the official Laws of Duplicate >> Contract Bridge. > >AG : but they should have been taught the basics of ethics and appropriate >behaviour. Alas, this is seldom the case in beginners courses. 1) I agree. 2) I don't think it matters in this case. I agree that beginners courses should teach things like ethics, appropriate behavior, and the basic principles of law. Some do--many don't, and that's too bad. It doesn't matter, because while I might be a Platonist [:)], I am not a Kantian. I don't think that what's right to do in this world should be defined by what would work well in an imaginary world in which people acted differently than they really do. _In this world_ many beginners classes are inadequate, and the majority of players don't learn the game in any kind of class at all. And, even if beginners classes did teach basic ethics, et al, I'm not sure they'd teach L25b. So, in fact, we're stuck with a world in which virtually no-one knows about L25b, and it will be effectively impossible to teach them without a massive educational effort that a) no-one's actually going to perform, and b) wouldn't be worth it for the purpose of defending Carthage even if they did. > They come to play, and expect that when something >> irregular happens (whether it is their or their opponents' fault) the >> laws will deal with it more or less fairly. That is a good thing, for >> if we impose an expectation of an understanding and mastery of the >> laws, we shall have no more than a few thousand duplicate players world >> wide. The laws should be written to support those players' >> expectations, i.e. so that when something irregular happens, it will be >> dealt with more or less fairly. > >AG : but how is anyone supposed to know there has been a breech of the Laws >(thus prompting a TD call) if one doesn't know them at least succinctly ? Because everyone that learns bridge, even at the kitchen table, knows that if someone has 12 cards instead of 13 something's wrong, or if someone revokes something's wrong, or if someone claims 8 tricks and you think they've only got 7 something's wrong, etc. They may not know how these problems are to be resolved [or, worse, they may think they know but have it wrong], but they know something's wrong that the laws deal with. They aren't taught that 'if you make a dumb bid you can change it later', and that's why L25b is a bad law. >Regards, > > Alain. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 01:14:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72FDqF11448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:13:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72FDjt11444 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:13:46 +1000 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:53:55 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EA@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:53:55 +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 Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Martin Sinot wrote: > >> Simple question. >> >> Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and >> instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. >> Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt >> or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? >> > >According to L42B2 dummy may try to prevent any irregularity >by declarer (subject to limitation under L43). OK, now I have two contradicting answers: 1) Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity of declarer (L42B2) 2) Dummy must keep silent and play, because the irregularity already happened when declarer called for the trump (L43A1b). My favourite is option 1, but who can shoot option 2? -- 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 Fri Aug 3 01:24:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72FNwf11466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:23:58 +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 f72FNpt11462 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:23:52 +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 RAA00640; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:17:26 +0200 (MEST) 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 RAA17412; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:20:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Martin Sinot" , "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:24:21 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Sinot > Simple question. > > Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and > instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. > Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt > or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? AG : since the footnote to L62 says L43B2C applies if the Dummy lost his rights (the revoke may not be corrected if dummy draws attention to it after he lost his rights), one has to infer that he may (but is by no way compelled to) draw attention to it while he still enjoys his rights. Else, why the remark ? Also note that L64B3 says that there is no penalty for dummy's revoke, but the revoke is still an incorrection, thus enabling L42B2 (or is it B1 ?). Another question : if dummy tables only 12 cards, the 13th resting on the floor, and revokes because it didn't play card n°13, is there any penalty ? I'd say no : card n°13 is deemed to have belonged to his hand from the beginning (L14B3), dummy's cards are spread (L41D), thus n°13 is deemed to lie on the table The revoke may be established (L14B3), but there is no penalty for it (L64B3). 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 Aug 3 01:32:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72FWaC12038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:32:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72FWTt12029 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:32:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:29:27 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.233] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:24:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2001 15:29:27.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA7DF7F0:01C11B67] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Eric Landau' ; Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:44 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Could have known? -s- | The main question is: do NS deserve their top if the case is as described, | north agreeing even that his call was based on UI. Irrespective of what TFLB says, morally, given the facts it is my opinion that the only appropriate call with the N cards is pass. It is irrelevant what score it brings about. | My answer is a clear 'no'. And if you still think that L16 can't be used for | such a case, explain to me. If you can convince the LC we have to take care | for it more explicitly. How is a player to know if an action is demonstrably suggested over another? He can only know after judging what inferences the UI makes available. So we must presume that a player knows what the inferences are because the law requires that he use those inferences for basing his actions. Albeit, he is called upon to be his own executioner. Psychologists have a term for this situation. It is called cognitive dissonance. regards roger pewick | You understand that this view is just my personal opinion, it is quite | possible that the LC is already convinced. | | 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 Aug 3 01:38:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72Fc8D12738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:38:08 +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 f72Fc0t12726 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:38:01 +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 RAA02855; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:31:36 +0200 (MEST) 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 RAA23269; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:34:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:38:32 +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 ----- > I came somewhat late to this thread, so I am guessing what has > happened - presumably South had a hand where he didn't want North to > bid, so that North's pass turned out to be a good idea. If this is so, > then it is the first actual case of a "reverse hesitation". AG : not really. South had a nightmare of a hand, took a very long time, and North, holding a perfectly normal hand for reopening (some said there was no LA, although I don't agree) didn't reopen because he had high ethics.It turned out right. Thus, the thread runs around three issues : 1) was there indeed a reverse hesitation, a cheat ? (we agree there wasn't) 2) should we decide against the OS, pretending there could have been a RH ? Some say yes, I say no (oh oh oh) because NS would be punished had N reopened or not, hardly sustainable. 3) N having an obvious reopening and bent backwards quite a lot, isn't the case more suspect ? > we can shelter behind "demonstrably suggested" and "logical > alternative". But if we disallow *this* action under Law 16, what we are > saying to the players is in effect: "You have knowingly used an illegal > form of communication, in that South has hesitated for no demonstrable > bridge reason - thus, we find that the only motive behind his hesitation > was to convey to North that he should *pass* a marginal hand". AG : in the present case, I can guarantee you there were enough motives for hesitating several decades. > On the contrary. We *are* talking about a case where South has, in > effect, been accused of using the hesitation to silence his partner. I > agree with you - he should be thrown out, if this is indeed what he has > done. And, if you use L16 to rule against him, you are in effect ruling > that this is what he has done. AG : that's why I disagree with those who want. You are in fact stating you agree with me on item #2 above. 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 Aug 3 01:51:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72Fp5x12798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:51:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f72Fovt12794 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:50:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18584 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 15:47:53 -0000 Received: from pec-36-151.tnt2.f.uunet.de (HELO www) (149.225.36.151) by mail.gmx.net (mail10) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 15:47:53 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:45:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Message-ID: <3B6991AA.12929.1BE1CF4@localhost> In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8E2@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 2 Aug 2001, at 16:12, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > On 1 Aug 2001, at 16:47, cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu wrote: > > > > > In other words, not only must we try to make sure that > > > irregularities are dealt with fairly, but we must also try to > > > make sure that what counts as an irregularity in the first > > > place corresponds at least approximately to the expectation > > > of the players. (snipped) > Still there is some merit in trying to get the laws > as close as possible to the feeling of equity players have. English is not my mother tongue and I don't have a dictionary, so please be mild if I got it wrong. I understand equity as something that comes *after* etablishing what is irregular or not, to compensate. The point where I disagree was how they etablish what is irregular or not. They don't read it so lets cancel it, can be an approach but .... Other put the word bridge between quotation marks as to show that there is a 'bridge' over bridge. That is to advocate that we should put black on white the corrupted version of the old bridge laws which our grandma learned and later teached us at the kitchentable. Bridge is a set of rules that evolves, for instance maybe in future days (if we still play at a table) the laws will be rewritten by a generation that does not know anything else then biddingboxes. The proper usage of them will be integral part of the game and an wrong handling of it will be considered at the same level as a wrong handling of the cards (this consequent step is already taken by a scandinavian federation). But this evolving should happen to the benifit of the game and not to serve the so widespreaded opinion, lets forget the rules and play 'bridge'. Time for me to go back in spectating modus of this mailing list, ciao stefan :-)) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 02:09:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72G9AR12823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:09:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f72G94t12819 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:09:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from iae.nl.iae.nl (pm14d02.iae.nl [212.61.2.67]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1DED720FD5 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:06:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <004601c11b6c$b2b663c0$43023dd4@nl.iae.nl> From: "Ben Schelen" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:13:04 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, he should warn him; maybe it helps: Law 42B2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:11 PM Subject: [BLML] Dummy Revokes > Simple question. > > Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and > instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. > Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt > or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? > > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 02:25:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72GOPn14898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:24:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72GOIt14889 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:24:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.144.32] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SLDi-00030p-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 17:21:11 +0100 Message-ID: <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:19:20 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : not really. South had a nightmare of a hand, took a very long time Thanks to Konrad and to Stefan, who kindly sent me the original hand. I find Alain's assessment somewhat puzzling - South apparently had: AK K1053 6 QJ10954 and the bidding was opened by his RHO with a natural 3C. This isn't a "nightmare" of any kind - this is a routine in-tempo pass, hoping perhaps for 3C-pass-pass-double-pass. Someone mentioned that South had to consider the possibility that East had psyched, actually holding diamonds. Well, I suppose he might have done, but so what? > North, holding a perfectly normal hand for reopening Well, North had: 975 Q964 KQJ1083 --- One could imagine being a bit worried about reopening with this - South will almost certainly bid 3NT, and a lot will swing on whether or not he has the ace of diamonds. Still, reopening is a normal action, though I would not go so far as to say that pass was not a logical alternative. > 1) was there indeed a reverse hesitation, a cheat ? (we agree there wasn't) I am pleased to hear it, although South's comments would have been of interest to me. > 2) should we decide against the OS, pretending there could have been a RH ? > Some say yes, I say no (oh oh oh) because NS would be punished had N > reopened or not, hardly sustainable. You can't "pretend" that there has been a reverse hesitation. Either you decide that there has, or that there has not. if your view of the matter is that South was deliberately trying to get North to pass, then you deal with the case under L16 and L73; if not, then you do not. Bear in mind that South has not committed an infraction by passing slowly, and if you decide that North was not in receipt of any UI, then North has not committed one either, so "could have known" etc. does not apply. > 3) N having an obvious reopening and bent backwards quite a lot, isn't the > case more suspect ? Well, if North had *doubled*, then one would be suspicious of the whole business. But if you take the view that South was daydreaming and not cheating, then North's actions seem to me beyond reproach. > AG : in the present case, I can guarantee you there were enough motives for > hesitating several decades. There is obviously some information here of which I am unaware. What action, in the name of all that is wonderful, could South possibly have been contemplating? 3H? 3NT? A takeout double? If you put this hand in a bidding competition for 25 experts, you would get 25 answers of "Pass. Ridiculous question." But one may assume (charitably) that South, taken aback by a somewhat unexpected development in the bidding, took more time than one would usually expect to come up with a completely obvious call. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 02:29:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72GTX515579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:29:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72GTQt15558 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:29:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:43:24 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CFD@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: Alain Gottcheiner To: "'Bridge Laws (E-mail) '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:43:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f72GTTt15566 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An interesting situation -- Dummy loses his rights (how is not important) Declarer leads a spade King from his hand and calls for a heart discard from dummy. Dummy says "Don't you have to play this singleton spade Ace" Now declarer can't correct the revoke (L43B2C) There is no penalty (L64B3) -----Original Message----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Martin Sinot; Bridge Laws (E-mail) Sent: 8/2/01 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes ----- Original Message ----- From: Martin Sinot > Simple question. > > Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and > instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. > Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt > or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? AG : since the footnote to L62 says L43B2C applies if the Dummy lost his rights (the revoke may not be corrected if dummy draws attention to it after he lost his rights), one has to infer that he may (but is by no way compelled to) draw attention to it while he still enjoys his rights. Else, why the remark ? Also note that L64B3 says that there is no penalty for dummy's revoke, but the revoke is still an incorrection, thus enabling L42B2 (or is it B1 ?). Another question : if dummy tables only 12 cards, the 13th resting on the floor, and revokes because it didn't play card n°13, is there any penalty ? I'd say no : card n°13 is deemed to have belonged to his hand from the beginning (L14B3), dummy's cards are spread (L41D), thus n°13 is deemed to lie on the table The revoke may be established (L14B3), but there is no penalty for it (L64B3). 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 Aug 3 02:34:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72GXx516150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:34:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f72GXrt16132 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2635 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 16:30:50 -0000 Received: from a1as17-p26.fra.tli.de (HELO www) (195.252.205.26) by mail.gmx.net (mp004-rz3) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 16:30:50 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Martin Sinot Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:28:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Message-ID: <3B699BBB.27396.1E570AB@localhost> In-reply-to: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EA@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Martin, On 2 Aug 2001, at 16:53, Martin Sinot wrote: > OK, now I have two contradicting answers: > 1) Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity of declarer (L42B2) > 2) Dummy must keep silent and play, because the irregularity > already happened when declarer called for the trump (L43A1b). I don't see any contraddiction as long as we assume time is linear and time travel is not possible. ---------------time vector----------------------> --law 42B2----!infraction!----law 43A1b--------> ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 02:50:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72GoMx18453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:50:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f72GoFt18439 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:50:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 10610 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 16:47:12 -0000 Received: from a1as04-p211.fra.tli.de (HELO www) (195.252.198.211) by mail.gmx.net (mp007-rz3) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 16:47:12 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Alain Gottcheiner" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:44:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Message-ID: <3B699F91.17084.1F46C41@localhost> In-reply-to: <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 2 Aug 2001, at 17:24, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : since the footnote to L62 says L43B2C applies if the Dummy > lost his rights (the revoke may not be corrected if dummy draws > attention to it after he lost his rights), one has to infer that > he may (but is by no way compelled to) draw attention to it while > he still enjoys his rights. Else, why the remark ? one moment, in my laws book a law 43B2C does not exist. So I will base my answer on the assumption you meant 43B2b that is written this way: -------- If dummy... (b) is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer's hand constitutes a revoke .... (etc.) -------- So a completely different matter, when dummy asks declarer if he has no more cards in the leaded suit dummy does not know if an infraction happend. So he is not pointing at an infraction, what to do he is not allowed. Isn't it so? ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 03:14:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72HETN21632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 03:14:29 +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 f72HENt21620 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 03:14:23 +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 NAA06244 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19577 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:11:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:11:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108021711.NAA19577@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "stefan filonardi" > Now it is eminent interest of the opponents to draw attention to > the [dummy's revoke] because there will be *no penality* for a revoke > done by dummy (law 64B3). It's true there will be no penalty, but it is not clear that drawing attention is in the defenders' interest. L64C still applies, and in determining equity, the TD will (normally) give the defenders the benefit of any doubt. Perhaps in this situation, the TD will be less inclined to do that, but he still must protect the NOS. So it is entirely possible that the defenders will benefit from the revoke by dummy. Life is a lot simpler if we interpret "prevent an irregularity" within a generous time frame. For revokes, in particular, we can deem establishment of the revoke as a separate irregularity from the revoke itself, although personally I am quite happy to allow "prevention" up until the next action by the offending declarer. No doubt this reflects a North American view. Perhaps the word "prevent" is a candidate for change or clarification in the next Laws revision. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 04:20:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72IJSQ00180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:19:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f72IJLt00159 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:19:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29294 invoked by uid 0); 2 Aug 2001 18:16:18 -0000 Received: from a1as19-p30.fra.tli.de (HELO www) (195.252.206.30) by mail.gmx.net (mail02) with SMTP; 2 Aug 2001 18:16:18 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:13:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Message-ID: <3B69B474.9.246043C@localhost> In-reply-to: <200108021711.NAA19577@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 2 Aug 2001, at 13:11, Steve Willner wrote: > Life is a lot simpler if we interpret "prevent an irregularity" > within a generous time frame. For revokes, in particular, we can > deem establishment of the revoke as a separate irregularity from > the revoke itself, although personally I am quite happy to allow > "prevention" up until the next action by the offending declarer. > No doubt this reflects a North American view. > > Perhaps the word "prevent" is a candidate for change or > clarification in the next Laws revision. -- we have a law about what dummy is allowed to do PRE EVENT, we have a law about what he is allowed to do after event. I don't see where there is need for further clarification, maybe I am to simple minded :-)) still I wonder that in north america you can prevent something that happend ;-) ciao stefan PS is it only me getting the emails from the blml with hours of delay? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 05:42:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72Jfsd08341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 05:41:54 +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 f72Jfmt08337 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 05:41:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f72JdsE17172 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007301c11b8a$b2c0c860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3B6991AA.12929.1BE1CF4@localhost> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:29:13 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This subject reminds me of the role of English grammar books. They are supposed to reflect the way intelligent people use the languge, reporting only that without creating rules of their own. Not true of many. Similarly, the Laws of bridge should reflect the way good bridge players think the game should be played. Not the lower echelon, who are the equivalent of illiterates. Not BLs, who love complexity and obscure language. And not TDs, pros, club owners, or politicos, who have conflicts of interest. I hope the drafting committee meeting in Montreal in 2002 will share that opinion. 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 Aug 3 07:05:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72L4Sg08902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:04:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72L4Mt08898 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:04:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f72L1MK06193 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@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, 02 Aug 2001 17:03:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? In-Reply-To: <3B683FB7.B791550D@village.uunet.be> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:43 PM 8/1/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 11:58 AM 7/31/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >But South may not be, and we need a law to deal with him. > > > > > >Well, that one exists as well : L73B1. > > >Or even L73B2. > > > > But there is nothing in the original post to suggest that this is the > > case. > >Isn't there ? Then why was it brought up, twice ? >Nobody told us the reason why South needed a minute to >think. > > > I feel rather strongly that there must be at least some, albeit > > not necessarily conclusive, evidence that South was trying to "do > > something" before we invoke L73 in this case. > >Which is why I want to ask South what he was thinking >about. It's up to the TD to do this, and determine whether >he is speaking the truth. > > > It seems pretty clear > > that had North taken a bid, and gained thereby, we would have had > > little hesitation in adjusting the score. > >Given South's hand, I think it highly unlikely that any bid >by North (save a TO-double, and maybe not even that = an SOS >redouble is surely next) might benefit NS. > > > As other have pointed out, > > we cannot support penalizing a pair any time someone hesitates and his > > partner finds the winning call regardless of what that call was, else > > we make it a redressable infraction just to hesitate. > >Pointed out, and agreed upon. This is not a L16 case. >L73B1 and 2 are needed. Which brings us back to the >original question. What next. Can we simply jump from L73B >to L12 ? I believe we can, but others might disagree. > > > If we adjust in this case, there is no point in telling our players > > that they should follow the dictates of L16A; we would owe them the > > truth -- it doesn't matter what you do; if you get a good result it > > will be taken away. > >Of course not. We congratulate North for his adherence to >L16. Then we castize South for breX-Mozilla-Status: 0009erman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium True in theory, but silly in practice. We know that whatever South tells us, it will boil down to, "I had a problem and was trying to decide what to bid." This is almost certainly the truth, and, even if it isn't, South will certainly say this anyhow. Sure, if South says "I had a problem, but I knew what I was going to bid; I only huddled so partner would know I had a problem" then we should penalize him for violating L73B. But do we really think this will ever happen? In real life, there won't ever be any "next". If we create one in this situation and remain consistent in other situations, we will wind up finding a violation of L73B every time someone huddles. 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 Aug 3 07:07:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72L7K408950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:07:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f16.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72L7Et08946 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:07:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:04:10 -0700 Received: from 195.67.213.4 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2001 21:04:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.67.213.4] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Law 25B in Skövde Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 21:04:10 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Aug 2001 21:04:10.0779 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD30DEB0:01C11B96] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There have been four cases here in one day. In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered it was forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his call to 3S and accept a maximum of Average Plus. Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was 3NT=, ie it would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.com bluejak666@hotmail.com Web: blakjak.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 3 08:44:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72MhnH13023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:43:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0 (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72Mhft13014 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:43:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3-0 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f72Mb5W22606 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EA@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-add r.ARPA> References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EA@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-add r.ARPA> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:30:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:53 PM +0200 8/2/01, Martin Sinot wrote: >OK, now I have two contradicting answers: >1) Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity of declarer (L42B2) >2) Dummy must keep silent and play, because the irregularity > already happened when declarer called for the trump (L43A1b). > >My favourite is option 1, but who can shoot option 2? Well, yes, 1) is correct - subject to Law 43A(1)(b) ("Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during play.") and Law 43A(1)(c)("Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer.") So the question is at what point Law 42B2 ceases to apply, and Law 43 comes into play. It seems to me that point is "when the irregularity actually occurs". In this case, when the card is legally played. 45B says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card...", so I'd say the card is played when declarer names it. That being the case, it seems to me 2) is the correct answer in this case. 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/AwUBO2nW6L2UW3au93vOEQIRUQCgq0GlakAzeeWKk0PEck9h46Y0C6IAn1Eo lG8uXHg6JpcojdgK4QETI0qz =rPb1 -----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 Aug 3 08:44:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72Mho513024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:43:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0 (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72Mhht13017 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 08:43:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3-0 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f72MdUW24725 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:39:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-add r.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 18:36:40 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >AG : since the footnote to L62 says L43B2C applies if the Dummy lost his >rights (the revoke may not be corrected if dummy draws attention to it after >he lost his rights), one has to infer that he may (but is by no way >compelled to) draw attention to it while he still enjoys his rights. Else, >why the remark ? The footnote refers to 43B2(b). There is no subparagraph (c). 43B2(b) refers to dummy's questions about plays from *declarer's* hand, not dummy's. 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/AwUBO2nW7b2UW3au93vOEQIwIwCfSmaaEKfd64aSG9h1jRmXbbAez5IAn3G9 3sg8Jg7zuQ0C6ecuNuuKl+AY =VKTl -----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 Aug 3 09:01:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f72N1AI13096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:01:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f72N12t13091 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:01:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010802225759.XQZQ3213.femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:57:59 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010802185533.007e1bd0@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: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:55:33 -0400 To: "'Bridge Laws (E-mail) '" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Revokes In-Reply-To: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087CFD@al194.minfod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:43 AM 8/2/01 -0500, John Nichols wrote: >An interesting situation -- > >Dummy loses his rights (how is not important) >Declarer leads a spade King from his hand and calls for a heart discard from >dummy. >Dummy says "Don't you have to play this singleton spade Ace" > >Now declarer can't correct the revoke (L43B2C) >There is no penalty (L64B3) There is no L43B2C; are you confusing L43B2B and L43B3? L43B2B says that declarer must correct the revoke and must still pay the L64 penalty, so this paradox does not occur. The same situation can happen with L63B. East has the H9 as a penalty card and discards a spade on a heart lead. West is not supposed to draw attention to this revoke in most jurisdictions, but if he does, East must correct the revoke by playing the H9, and there is no revoke penalty under L64B3. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 10:10:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f730AAc18197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:10:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsfep13-int.chello.nl (amsfep13-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.23] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f730A3t18193 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:10:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsfep13-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20010803000359.TZDK24832.amsfep13-int.chello.nl@witz> for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 02:03:59 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010803020658.010e5730@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 02:06:58 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes In-Reply-To: <3B69B474.9.246043C@localhost> References: <200108021711.NAA19577@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 08:13 PM 02-08-01 +0200, you wrote: >Hello, > >On 2 Aug 2001, at 13:11, Steve Willner wrote: > >> Life is a lot simpler if we interpret "prevent an irregularity" >> within a generous time frame. For revokes, in particular, we can >> deem establishment of the revoke as a separate irregularity from >> the revoke itself, although personally I am quite happy to allow >> "prevention" up until the next action by the offending declarer. >> No doubt this reflects a North American view. >> >> Perhaps the word "prevent" is a candidate for change or >> clarification in the next Laws revision. -- > >we have a law about what dummy is allowed to do PRE EVENT, we >have a law about what he is allowed to do after event. > >I don't see where there is need for further clarification, maybe >I am to simple minded :-)) still I wonder that in north america >you can prevent something that happend ;-) > the establishment of the revoke isnt happened and btw the establishment isnt punished. so whats the problem allowing dummy to warn declarer???? i think this is sort of a non problem :) regards, anton >ciao stefan > >PS >is it only me getting the emails from the blml with hours of >delay? >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 10:10:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f730Ali18203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:10:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f144.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.144]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f730Agt18199 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:10:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:07:39 -0700 Received: from 172.154.93.19 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 00:07:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.154.93.19] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skövde Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 17:07:39 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2001 00:07:39.0724 (UTC) FILETIME=[4F0890C0:01C11BB0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Stevenson" > There have been four cases here in one day. > > In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered it >was >forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his call to 3S and >accept a maximum of Average Plus. > > Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was 3NT=, ie it >would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? I might be confused, but the offending side gets no better than average minus, so I'd rule -3 imps. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 3 10:36:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f730aaV21850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:36:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f730aRt21836 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:36:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from ACCORDION2.acsys.anu.edu.au (accordion2.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.15]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01448; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:33:24 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010803100513.02d8a680@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:34:43 +1000 To: "stefan filonardi" From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] delay at blml Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3B69F446.9649.33F5A02@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Stefan, et al At 12:45 AM 3/08/2001 +0200, stefan filonardi wrote: >How does it come that: >- I get my own postings ca 60-90 min later compared to when I >sent them. (1) >- I get often answers to emails I haven't yet got. (2) >- I can read at the html-archive the actual posting, but they >will drop into my mailing box only several hours later? (3) The problem is just the sheer linear nature of mailing lists, and the flickering nature of many email/network services around the net. When a message comes in, it is copied to the archive immediately - hence (3). The message is then "queued" for outbound delivery to all 250+ addresses. These are sorted by destination, so that e.g. all demon.co.uk get sent as a group, all msn.com, yahoo.com, hotmail.com, etc. so that it doesn't have to contact a mailserver more than once, regardless if there are 1 or 100 addresses there. What happens next though is the mail server steps through these blocks of addresses, one at a time. If any of them block (network timeouts, reachability issues, load on remote mail server, ...) it holds up everything behind it. Eventually it will time out (minutes...) and try the next block, and hold the problem addresses for another go, 15 minutes later. So it slowly whittles down the addresses to deliver each message to. That's (1) and (3). Some problem addresses stay in the queue for up to 5 days. Since each message is handled separately it is sometimes possible for one to get through its recipient list somewhat faster than another (e.g. if a mail service is going up and down due to local problems, one attempt may succeed when another just before or just after fails). If there are many messages in the queue held up then the load on my server here can also hit an internal limit and it will block everything until things have settled down. That's very rare though. In many cases ISP's run a backup mail service somewhere else to cover problems. So the message gets stored somewhere else after it has left here, and is eventually forwarded to the final mail server - that introduces yet another delay. Right now I can see problems with msn.com, farebrother.cx, btinternet.com, and sites that sit behind them. Typically every message sent to BLML generates 1-3 fatal errors to me, and around 10-30 warnings (which I don't usually see until it gets too bad). Some of these problems extend for *days*, or at least many hours (sysadmins go to sleep, whatever happened to 24x7 service?). I've seen a few problems with gmx.de as well. Sometimes people's addresses vanish from a mailserver (I get people at msn.com "no such user" for a few hours and then it works again. ac.com used to delete all their users over weekends and shut down their mail servers - or so it appeared to me, based on the many errors I got from them). Sometimes whole domains disappear from the Net ('msn.com - no such domain'). Anyway, I hope that clarifies the problem. The box rgb is running is not the world's fastest, but it is fast enough, and it has good connectivity to the Internet (albeit sitting in Australia). I might look at replacing sendmail with something a bit cleverer at bulk mailing - maybe those nice spammers can suggest a product :-) and if I free up a faster box I can move the list to it. But that's about all I can do to accelerate things, and I would not expect it to make too much difference. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Faculty of Engineering and IT, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 email: markus.buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CSIT Bldg #108 |Fax: +61 2 61259805 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 10:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f730bRc21933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:37:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f730bGt21916 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:37:17 +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 AAA05753 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:34:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:30:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> In-Reply-To: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.1 68.192.in-addr.ARPA>, Martin Sinot writes >Simple question. > >Declarer plays a heart contract. He leads a diamond and >instructs dummy to ruff. Dummy however still has diamonds. >Should dummy now warn the leader for the revoke attempt >or play the heart without comment, as instructed by declarer? > It will be in dummy's interest to say "follow suit" because if the opponents notice then the TD will restore equity anyway, but will favour the non-offenders. There is no legal requirement to do so however. -- 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 Aug 3 17:49:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f737jt202788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:45:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f91.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f737jnt02771 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:45:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 00:41:12 -0700 Received: from 195.67.213.26 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 07:41:12 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.67.213.26] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 07:41:12 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2001 07:41:12.0469 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB17EC50:01C11BEF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Stevenson" > There have been four cases here in one day. > > In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered >it was forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his >call to 3S and accept a maximum of Average Plus. > > Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was 3NT=, >ie it would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? Goodness, I am a prawn!! I meant to say "accept a maximum of Average Minus." Thanks to Fearghal for pointing it out. -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.com bluejak666@hotmail.com Web: blakjak.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 3 17:57:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f737sRJ03920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:54:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f737sGt03888 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:54:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id A1DAC2A4CAB; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:49:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 3A36F2A4D05 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:49:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id 17FC0373 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:50:36 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B6A56E6.5010905@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:46:46 +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] Law 25B in =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sk=F6vde?= References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: 2d17eacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> From: "David Stevenson" >> There have been four cases here in one day. >> >> In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered >> it was >> forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his call to >> 3S and accept a maximum of Average Plus. >> >> Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was 3NT=, >> ie it >> would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? > > > I might be confused, but the offending side gets no better than > average minus, so I'd rule -3 imps. > > -Todd The question was not "what should the ruling be?" but "How did the TD rule?". My guess is the ruling was +3 for the NOs and -3 to the Os (equivallent to 60/40 at pairs) while it should have been the other way round (but not because of any A+ or A-; just because 3 IMPs is awarded for the difference of 90 points). Am I right? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland --------------------------------------------------- Wyslij kartke pocztowa i... BUKIET KWIATOW ZA DARMO http://kartki.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 Aug 3 17:58:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f737thl04103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:55:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f737tYt04088 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:55:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 4C30A2A4C16; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:51:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 6AA802A4CA4 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:51:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id BA6693A4 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:52:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B6A573F.5030908@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:48:15 +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 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sk=F6vde?= References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: b5524acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Correction! It should have been -3/-3 of course. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland --------------------------------------------------- Wyslij kartke pocztowa i... BUKIET KWIATOW ZA DARMO http://kartki.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 Aug 3 18:12:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7389Ks06520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:09:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7389Et06509 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:09:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.60.140] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SZyH-0007SL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:06:14 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c11bf2$eb80b1c0$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: [BLML] =?Windows-1252?Q?Re:_=5BBLML=5D_Law_25B_in_Sk=F6vde?= Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 09:04:26 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > There have been four cases here in one day. > > In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered it was > forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his call to 3S and > accept a maximum of Average Plus. > > Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was 3NT=, ie it > would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? If he was the same TD who offered the player a maximum of average *plus*, I do not especially care. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 19:08:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7395JX13651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:05:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7395Ct13636 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:05:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7392Ai00936 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:02:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:02 +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: <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Thanks to Konrad and to Stefan, who kindly sent me the original hand. I > find Alain's assessment somewhat puzzling - South apparently had: > > AK > K1053 > 6 > QJ10954 > > and the bidding was opened by his RHO with a natural 3C. This isn't a > "nightmare" of any kind - this is a routine in-tempo pass, hoping > perhaps for 3C-pass-pass-double-pass. Someone mentioned that South had > to consider the possibility that East had psyched, actually holding > diamonds. Well, I suppose he might have done, but so what? It was I. Now I know the rule "If you are fixed by a psyche, stay fixed" - unlike David it takes me a while to work out that the psyche has indeed fixed me. It then takes me a while longer, after realising that my (passed hand) partner will be prevented from acting on marginal values to work out that I have just dug myself in even more deeply. Since I consider this to be a genuine bridge problem I am not prepared to penalise the hesitation (since it could also be deliberate cheating I will make a note and see if the same player does something similar again). 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 Aug 3 19:11:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f739B6P14551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:11:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f739Axt14532 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:10:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.60.140] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15Saw1-0001Y0-00; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:07:57 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c11bfb$8aacb480$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:06:09 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > > In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered >it > was forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his >call to > 3S and accept a maximum of Average Plus. > > > > Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was 3NT=, >ie > it would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? Well, this is a knockout event. So, the side that changed its call gets -3 IMPs (L25B). The other side gets -3 IMPs as well, because that is what it lost on the board. We average these scores per L86B, and arrive at a flat board (the OS is -3 IMPs at one table, +3 IMPs at the other). At least, that is what the Laws appear to me to say that we do. But here is a curious situation - the thinking behind L25B was, as I understand it, that the OS should accept -3 IMPs rather than have to play in a ridiculous contract and lose a huge swing. Suppose, though, that the contract at the other table was a part score, so that 3NT+3 would actually gain 11 IMPs for the OS. If we average -3 at one table and +11 at the other table, we conclude that the OS actually gains 4 IMPs on the board. Is this what is supposed to happen? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 19:43:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f739hcX18222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:43:38 +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 f739hVt18208 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:43:31 +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 LAA09705; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:39:55 +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 LAA15407; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:40:25 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <003e01c11c00$d43056c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:44:01 +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 ----- > There is obviously some information here of which I am unaware. What > action, in the name of all that is wonderful, could South possibly have > been contemplating? 3H? 3NT? A takeout double? If you put this hand in a > bidding competition for 25 experts, you would get 25 answers of "Pass. > Ridiculous question." AG : really ? Then 25 experts out of 25 would get a ridiculous result when holding those two hands : AK xxx K10xx Qxxxx x Axxx QJ109xx x or : AK Qxxx K10xx Axx x J109x QJ109xx Kx The second case can't happen ? Wait until you see my 3rd-in-hand-green preempts ... > But one may assume (charitably) that South, taken aback by a somewhat unexpected development in the bidding, AG : yes, we may. The 3C opening (rather than 1D, 1S, 1NT, 3D or whatever) is quite unexpected. And one of South's problems is that he can guess (given E won't have much more than AKxxxx(x) and out) that partner has about a 10-count (remember LHO passed). And there are many cases where 3NT will fetch facing an undistinguished 10-count. So, you see, the pass is not as obvious as you pretended. 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 Aug 3 19:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f739o3a19030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:50:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f739nut19016 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:49:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA09395; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:43:29 +0200 (MEST) 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 LAA18902; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:46:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00ab01c11c01$ba465100$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "stefan filonardi" , References: <3B699F91.17084.1F46C41@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:50:28 +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: stefan filonardi > > one moment, in my laws book a law 43B2C does not exist. So I > will base my answer on the assumption you meant 43B2b that is > written this way: AG : oopsz ... what's that bug ? In my book there is indeed a L43B2C. Traduttore ... But you're right, 43B2C is concerned with something slightly different. I simply stated that, since something is said about the fact that dummy may not enquire after he has been deprived of his rights, in the general case he may. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 19:56:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f739uQJ19823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:56:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f739uJt19800 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:56:19 +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 LAA12190; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:52:42 +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 LAA22067; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:53:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:56:48 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High 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 ----- > >AG : since the footnote to L62 says L43B2C applies if the Dummy lost his > >rights (the revoke may not be corrected if dummy draws attention to it after > >he lost his rights), one has to infer that he may (but is by no way > >compelled to) draw attention to it while he still enjoys his rights. Else, > >why the remark ? > > The footnote refers to 43B2(b). There is no subparagraph (c). 43B2(b) > refers to dummy's questions about plays from *declarer's* hand, not > dummy's. AG : I swear that in my book, the footnote to L62 mentions 43B2c, and that 43B2c does exists. It reads (translated from French) : ... is the first to draw attention to an irregularity by a defender, no penalty will be applied. If the defense gets direct advantage from its irregularity, the director will give both sides an adjusted score to go back to equity. My version is the official French version of 1997. Scan sent on request. Alain. > > 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/AwUBO2nW7b2UW3au93vOEQIwIwCfSmaaEKfd64aSG9h1jRmXbbAez5IAn3G9 > 3sg8Jg7zuQ0C6ecuNuuKl+AY > =VKTl > -----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 Fri Aug 3 19:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f739wLx20032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:58:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f739wFt20012 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:58:15 +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 LAA10708; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:51:48 +0200 (MEST) 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 LAA23034; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:55:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00f101c11c02$e33506a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BBLML=5D_Law_25B_in_Sk=F6vde?= Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:58:46 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- > In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then remembered it was > forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his call to 3S and > accept a maximum of Average Plus. AG : isn't it average minus ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 20:22:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73ALMm23127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:21:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73ALGt23107 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:21:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-165.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.165]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B0E5C36C4A; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:18:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:18:42 +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 >At 4:53 PM +0200 8/2/01, Martin Sinot wrote: >>OK, now I have two contradicting answers: >>1) Dummy may try to prevent an irregularity of declarer (L42B2) >>2) Dummy must keep silent and play, because the irregularity >> already happened when declarer called for the trump (L43A1b). >> >>My favourite is option 1, but who can shoot option 2? > >Well, yes, 1) is correct - subject to Law 43A(1)(b) ("Dummy may not >call attention to an irregularity during play.") and Law >43A(1)(c)("Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he >communicate anything about the play to declarer.") > >So the question is at what point Law 42B2 ceases to apply, and Law 43 >comes into play. It seems to me that point is "when the irregularity >actually occurs". In this case, when the card is legally played. 45B >says "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card...", so I'd >say the card is played when declarer names it. That being the case, >it seems to me 2) is the correct answer in this case. > > >Regards, > >Ed In my opinion the only 'normal' feeling in this problem is to allow dummy to draw attention to this irregularity. Now we might have a problem if the laws don't allow dummy to do so. And reading Ed's reply he seems to proof that it is not allowed, which creates the problem. So dummy is not allowed to say: 'you revoked partner'. But we still have L 42B1, which means that dummy may ask: 'don't you have a heart anymore?', showing that he has more rights than just preventing an irregularity to occur (or that he is still trying to prevent an irregularity: the revoke becoming established). You are right, it was probably never meant to be used for such a case, but is it legally wrong to use it? I don't think so. If the laws are not strong enough (I prefer to say: if you think you found another leak) we have to be clever (a leak with no water coming through) (something similar is a saying in Dutch). 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 Aug 3 21:02:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73B2UX28256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:02:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73B29t28210 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:02:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id BD6232A4F13; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:54:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 8B6562A4BE7 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:54:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id 646CA397 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:55:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B6A7429.1010605@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:51:37 +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] Law 25B in Skvde References: <003101c11bfb$8aacb480$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: 3d106acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > >> > In the main knockout teams final a player passed 3H then > > remembered >it > >> was forcing. Having heard the options he decuided to change his >> call to >> 3S and accept a maximum of Average Plus. >> > >> > Eventually he made 3NT+3, and the score in the other room was > > 3NT=, >ie > >> it would normally be +3 imps. How did the TD rule? > > > Well, this is a knockout event. So, the side that changed its call > gets -3 IMPs (L25B). The other side gets -3 IMPs as well, because that > is what it lost on the board. We average these scores per L86B, and > arrive at a flat board (the OS is -3 IMPs at one table, +3 IMPs at the > other). > > At least, that is what the Laws appear to me to say that we do. But here > is a curious situation - the thinking behind L25B was, as I understand > it, that the OS should accept -3 IMPs rather than have to play in a > ridiculous contract and lose a huge swing. Suppose, though, that the > contract at the other table was a part score, so that 3NT+3 would > actually gain 11 IMPs for the OS. If we average -3 at one table and +11 > at the other table, we conclude that the OS actually gains 4 IMPs on the > board. Is this what is supposed to happen? > > David Burn > London, England The problem you mentioned has always bothered me; it is a problem of KO events only (in round robin the final score will be 21:7VP for instance so there is no problem). But I have always wondered what is A+ and A- in BAM or in Patton. Anyone can help? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland --------------------------------------------------- Wyslij kartke pocztowa i... BUKIET KWIATOW ZA DARMO http://kartki.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 Aug 3 21:26:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73BPbr00874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:25:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73BPVt00861 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:25:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.106.197] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15Sd2D-0004yZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:22:30 +0100 Message-ID: <007b01c11c0e$563c5940$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> <003e01c11c00$d43056c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:20:42 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : really ? Then 25 experts out of 25 would get a ridiculous result when > holding those two hands : > > AK xxx > K10xx Qxxxx > x Axxx > QJ109xx x > Well, they'd probably go plus defending 3C. I'd feel quite happy if I got to 4H on a free run with these cards, so I would not regard 150 or so from 3C as "ridiculous" in the circumstances. > or : > > AK Qxxx > K10xx Axx > x J109x > QJ109xx Kx > > The second case can't happen ? Wait until you see my 3rd-in-hand-green > preempts ... The second case can indeed not happen, for that East hand is an obvious double, which might perhaps discourage one or two of your pre-empts. But the facts of the matter are: (1) When the opponents pre-empt, your side does not always reach its optimum contract. If it did, there would not be much point in pre-empting, after all. (2) To do other than pass with the actual South hand over 3C is ridiculous, whatever result may be the outcome. > AG : yes, we may. The 3C opening (rather than 1D, 1S, 1NT, 3D or whatever) > is quite unexpected. And one of South's problems is that he can guess (given > E won't have much more than AKxxxx(x) and out) that partner has about a > 10-count (remember LHO passed). And there are many cases where 3NT will > fetch facing an undistinguished 10-count. > > So, you see, the pass is not as obvious as you pretended. Yes, it is. To construct wonderful hands opposite, with five hearts and the ace of diamonds facing a singleton in the one instance, and that convenient DJ109x in the other, does not make passing any less obvious. Tim was rather closer to the mark when he wrote: >It was I. Now I know the rule "If you are fixed by a psyche, stay fixed" - unlike David it takes me a while to work out that the psyche has indeed fixed me. It then takes me a while longer, after realising that my (passed hand) partner will be prevented from acting on marginal values to work out that I have just dug myself in even more deeply. Very well. If by the time you reach this point in your thinking, you realise that you are not going to (for example) defend 3C doubled because you have prevented your partner from doubling it, then you should assess (rather more realistically than Alain has done) your chances in some other contract. I would not mind a player who came up with 3NT on the basis that he knew partner was going to be fixed, and thought he'd take a long shot at game in case the contract at the other table was 3C doubled. But... >Since I consider this to be a genuine bridge problem I am not prepared to penalise the hesitation (since it could also be deliberate cheating I will make a note and see if the same player does something similar again). One does not "penalise the hesitation", for it is not an offence. But this "note-making" business is all eyewash, and is all too frequently used as a cop-out by directors who say, in effect: "You can cheat this time, but don't do it again". The implication is that South's action will immediately by transmitted to the Interpol computers, and the next time South comes up before a committee, it will have access to the entire database of South's past transgressions. It will not. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 21:27:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73BRge01189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:27:42 +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 f73BRZt01167 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:27:36 +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 NAA26722; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:23:58 +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 NAA04709; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:24:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <000c01c11c0f$5d456280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate argument Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:28:04 +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 After much thinking about this simple case :), logic tells me that we must allow dummy to ask. If we did not, it means that if dummy asks, the revoke becomes established, may not be corrected, but since dummy's revoke is not penalized, the NOS are worse off than if dummy hadn't said anything (in which case they may signal the fact themselves, causing a correciton according to L62A). If we say dummy may not ask, we say asking is an irregularity, but it is one after which the OS will most of the time be in a more favorable position that if it didn't happen. This can't be right. Reductio ad absurdum. BTW, it is not absolutely true that a card has been played when the declarer has asked for a card. Say South, declarer at a NT contract, plays a card from his hand, then asks for 'a small trump', or 'ruff with a small one' (which, at a trump contract, constitute sufficient designations). No card has been played. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 21:54:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73Bp8F04622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:51:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73Bp1t04611 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:51:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.106.197] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SdQu-0005nI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:48:01 +0100 Message-ID: <009701c11c11$e6948780$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003101c11bfb$8aacb480$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> <3B6A7429.1010605@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:46:12 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad wrote: > The problem you mentioned has always bothered me; it is a problem of KO > events only (in round > robin the final score will be 21:7VP for instance so there is no problem). I am not particularly happy with this. I don't think that in a VP event, teams should ever play for less than (or more than) the maximum number of VPs available to other teams because of some infraction or other error. For example, in the last European Championships England beat Norway something like 21-12, because of a duplicating error that gave 6 IMPs to each side. This wouldn't have struck the rest of the field as very fair, and it just strikes me as very stupid. If teams get fined VPs for infractions or errors in procedure, that's OK - but initially at any rate, the total score in a match should be the same in all cases. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 22:32:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73CTAF09618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:29:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73CT0t09605 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:29:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.121.86] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15Se1g-00033Y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:26:01 +0100 Message-ID: <00bd01c11c17$35587660$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <000c01c11c0f$5d456280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate argument Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:24:12 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > After much thinking about this simple case :), logic tells me that we must > allow dummy to ask. Ask what? As I understood it, declarer asked dummy to play a heart when dummy had diamonds, and diamonds was the suit led. Now, dummy is allowed to prevent any irregularity by declarer (L42B2). He may not in general call attention to an irregularity during play (L43A1b), but this general prohibition is specifically overridden by L42 (because that is what it says at the top of L43). The wording is, I agree, circular - L42B says that dummy may do things subject to L43; L43 says that dummy may not do things except where permitted to do so by L42. But the "limitations provided in Law 43" include the phrase "Except as specified in Law 42", from which one may infer that the permissions of L42 override the prohibitions of L43, and not the other way round. > BTW, it is not absolutely true that a card has been played when the declarer > has asked for a card. Say South, declarer at a NT contract, plays a card > from his hand, then asks for 'a small trump', or 'ruff with a small one' > (which, at a trump contract, constitute sufficient designations). No card > has been played. True, but no card has been asked for either (since there is no trump with which dummy can ruff). If what declarer says constitutes a designation of a card, then (in general) dummy must play that card. If what declarer says does not denote a card, then dummy must do nothing. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 3 22:41:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73CchR10351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:38:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f73CcWt10339 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:38:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 32246 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 2001 12:35:27 -0000 Received: from pec-40-130.tnt4.f.uunet.de (HELO www) (149.225.40.130) by mail.gmx.net (mail08) with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 12:35:27 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:32:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) Message-ID: <3B6AB60D.11932.D4023C@localhost> In-reply-to: <000c01c11c0f$5d456280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, wanted to keep quiet but .... I think some posting are distorting a lot the laws to let them fit in what we consider 'bridge'. imho there is absolute no logical flaw between the law 42 and 43, a perfect work by the law-makers, absolute no problem there. Where the big crash happens, is when after having seen that dummy is not allowed to call attention to the irregularity we read: ---- LAW62 A. A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregulatiry before it becomes etablished. ---- So we are back to our daily life bridge and even if it is a little bit long way even the law covers our daily experience if I am not totally wrong :-) Dummy not allowed to call attention. Dummy revokes. Dummy must correct. Dummy not allowed to play a card by his own. Dummy asks player what he should play. ciao stefan PS all statemets above by a layman. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 00:01:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73E0YN11225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:00:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f73E0Rt11221 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:00:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f73DvRw26146 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:57:27 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 14:57 +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: <007b01c11c0e$563c5940$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > >Since I consider this to be a genuine bridge problem I am not prepared > > to penalise the hesitation (since it could also be deliberate cheating > >I will make a note and see if the same player does something similar > >again). > One does not "penalise the hesitation", for it is not an offence. Well I think it would be an offense *only* if it was a) Inadvertent in a situation where it would often work to the player's advantage b) A deliberate attempt to forestall (an ethical) partner from bidding I doubt a) applies here. I'd have expected some comment from the original poster to that effect were it plausible. > But this "note-making" business is all eyewash, and is all too > frequently used as a cop-out by directors who say, in effect: "You can > cheat this time, but don't do it again". OK there a some approaches one can try - for instance I might ask Mr Hesitator if he was aware that hesitating so that partner will pass is against the rules. Obviously if he says "no" to that I can adjust and give a warning/PP without any accusation of actual cheating. But apart from that I don't think the evidence is anything like strong enough to justify a cheating accusation (let alone secure a conviction). What the hell can a TD do, in isolation, apart from make a note? A national database of such situations is, I guess, a remote possibility. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 00:09:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73E9Bn11245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:09:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f73E95t11241 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 00:09:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA21491; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:05:28 +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 QAA24286; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:05:57 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <001601c11c25$ecc53780$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> <003e01c11c00$d43056c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <007b01c11c0e$563c5940$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:09:34 +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 ----- > > > or : > > > > AK Qxxx > > K10xx Axx > > x J109x > > QJ109xx Kx > > > > The second case can't happen ? Wait until you see my 3rd-in-hand-green > > preempts ... > > The second case can indeed not happen, for that East hand is an obvious > double AG : try giving it to your all-expert panel. No doubt many will answer that with the Kx clubs sitting in front of the preempt, they wouldn't reopen (especially at red). The strange thing about this hand is that changing the CK into DK makes it an obvious reopening, but in this case 3NT is slightly worse. Perhaps S should bid 3NT himself, if only to put off pressure from his partner. I'd rather make some risky overcalls than many risky reopenings. > > (1) When the opponents pre-empt, your side does not always reach its > optimum contract. If it did, there would not be much point in > pre-empting, after all. > (2) To do other than pass with the actual South hand over 3C is > ridiculous, whatever result may be the outcome. AG : the discussion has gone a little bit too far. Let's end this thread by asking anybody who owns a hand generator to ask it what the percentage action is on South's hand, knowing that W and N passed, and that E has 6 clubs (let's be serious) and no outside A or K + K or K + Q. It is possible that this action be 3NT. In fact, I'd seriously consider bidding 3NT. BTA I'm no expert. 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 Aug 4 01:26:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73FOpd14033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:24:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73FOit14019 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 01:24:45 +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 PAA07439 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:21:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 16:08:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes snip > >AG : I swear that in my book, the footnote to L62 mentions 43B2c, and that >43B2c does exists. It reads (translated from French) : > >... is the first to draw attention to an irregularity by a defender, no >penalty will be applied. If the defense gets direct advantage from its >irregularity, the director will give both sides an adjusted score to go back >to equity. > >My version is the official French version of 1997. Scan sent on request. > > Alain. > Oh M***e (free translation from the English) :) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 02:55:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73Gt4217371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:55:04 +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.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [194.221.183.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f73Gsut17367 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:54:57 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 9635 invoked by uid 0); 3 Aug 2001 16:51:50 -0000 Received: from a1as16-p239.fra.tli.de (HELO www) (195.252.204.239) by mail.gmx.net (mp003-rz3) with SMTP; 3 Aug 2001 16:51:50 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:49:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [BLML] etablish a revoke = infraction? Message-ID: <3B6AF225.13674.1BEC84E@localhost> In-reply-to: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, need an help because I am not longer sure about after so eminent TD express the same opinion. Kooijman: > that he is still trying to prevent an irregularity: the revoke > becoming established Probst: > Establishing the revoke will be an infraction Till now I believed that a revoke is an infraction, that can be established. That to establish a revoke is *itself* an infraction is a new concept to me, where do I find it in the laws? ciao stefan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 03:07:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73H7UP17419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:07:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f73H7Ot17415 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:07:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f73H5QN00367 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005401c11c3e$4ab34fe0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:03:54 -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 I was victimized by a sort of coffeehouse in the Toronto NABC. The situation was this: Declarer is playing dummy's last winner, and dummy has no further entries. I hold Q98x of clubs over dummy's 10x, and know that declarer has AK?x of clubs. He probably holds the jack for his bid, but maybe not. Declarer and I hold the singleton spade ace and spade king respectively, with two small spades in dummy, which is all the spades. Having to come down to four cards, I am squeezed and must throw a club. However... Declarer has plucked a card from his hand, holding it above his hand as if ready to play it. Hmm. Does he know what to do if I discard the king of spades? He hasn't played the hand well so far, with no reason to block the spade suit. Surely he wouldn't replace the card and play another? But he did, when I threw the king of spades, his ace discard establishing two spades in dummy. No squeeze, partner had the jack of clubs. "No fair!" I said, and called the TD. Unfortunately I was the only one who saw what he had done, and he denied it with extreme agitation, saying I was just trying to make up for a stupid play. I now realized I had greatly underestimated him. Suppose others had agreed with me about the detached card. What should the TD do, if anything, and what law would apply? 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 Aug 4 04:07:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73I7IH17526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 04:07:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f263.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.14.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73I7Ct17522 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 04:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:04:07 -0700 Received: from 208.11.8.3 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:04:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [208.11.8.3] From: "David Kent" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:04:07 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2001 18:04:07.0709 (UTC) FILETIME=[B078F4D0:01C11C46] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You made a 0% play and you want redress??? -- Dave Kent >From: "Marvin L. French" >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >To: >Subject: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto >Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:03:54 -0700 > >I was victimized by a sort of coffeehouse in the Toronto NABC. The >situation was this: > >Declarer is playing dummy's last winner, and dummy has no further >entries. I hold Q98x of clubs over dummy's 10x, and know that >declarer has AK?x of clubs. He probably holds the jack for his bid, >but maybe not. Declarer and I hold the singleton spade ace and spade >king respectively, with two small spades in dummy, which is all the >spades. > >Having to come down to four cards, I am squeezed and must throw a >club. However... > >Declarer has plucked a card from his hand, holding it above his hand >as if ready to play it. Hmm. Does he know what to do if I discard >the king of spades? He hasn't played the hand well so far, with no >reason to block the spade suit. Surely he wouldn't replace the card >and play another? But he did, when I threw the king of spades, his >ace discard establishing two spades in dummy. No squeeze, partner >had the jack of clubs. > >"No fair!" I said, and called the TD. Unfortunately I was the only >one who saw what he had done, and he denied it with extreme >agitation, saying I was just trying to make up for a stupid play. I >now realized I had greatly underestimated him. > >Suppose others had agreed with me about the detached card. What >should the TD do, if anything, and what law would apply? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Aug 4 05:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73JISa19082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:18:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f73JIKt19073 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f73JGKN21767; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009a01c11c50$94620de0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Kent" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:13:56 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > You made a 0% play and you want redress??? It was a 100% play if declarer was going to play the card he had pulled from his hand. 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 Sat Aug 4 05:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73JJ5v19121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:19:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73JItt19107 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:18:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f73JFsj14021 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:15:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6A80EA.8C899982@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:46:02 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain needs to learn one thing still on blml. Sometimes an example is not perfect for the principle that we are seeking. Maybe this is one of these cases. It might be interesting to discuss whether or not some principle applies to this actual case, but I believe that the discussion on the principle is far more interesting. So Alain, suppose South does not come up with one of the many explanations you could have for needing one minute to decide that pass is his best bid (I'd still like to hear one such explanation, but that is beside the point), do you really believe that this South should get away with it ? Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > AG : not really. South had a nightmare of a hand, took a very long time, and > North, holding a perfectly normal hand for reopening (some said there was no > LA, although I don't agree) didn't reopen because he had high ethics.It > turned out right. Thus, the thread runs around three issues : > 1) was there indeed a reverse hesitation, a cheat ? (we agree there wasn't) > 2) should we decide against the OS, pretending there could have been a RH ? > Some say yes, I say no (oh oh oh) because NS would be punished had N > reopened or not, hardly sustainable. North would not be punished had he reopened, because that would have led to a worse result that they now have - and South _knew_ this (or could have known). > 3) N having an obvious reopening and bent backwards quite a lot, isn't the > case more suspect ? > -- 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 Aug 4 05:20:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73JItc19106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:18:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f73JInt19101 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:18:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f73JFij13873 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:15:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:40:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@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: > > > > >Of course not. We congratulate North for his adherence to > >L16. Then we castize South for breX-Mozilla-Status: 0009erman DE WAEL > >Antwerpen Belgium > > True in theory, but silly in practice. We know that whatever South > tells us, it will boil down to, "I had a problem and was trying to > decide what to bid." This is almost certainly the truth, and, even if > it isn't, South will certainly say this anyhow. Sure, if South says "I > had a problem, but I knew what I was going to bid; I only huddled so > partner would know I had a problem" then we should penalize him for > violating L73B. But do we really think this will ever happen? In real > life, there won't ever be any "next". If we create one in this > situation and remain consistent in other situations, we will wind up > finding a violation of L73B every time someone huddles. > Well Eric, we both know that, I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then I'll rule against him. Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't thought of. I allow him to tell me. I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I need a "could have known" somewhere. Does that exist ? -- 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 Aug 4 05:20:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73JJ7Y19123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:19:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f73JIvt19109 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 05:18:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f73JFuj14067 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:15:56 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6A8AAE.91A19709@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:27:42 +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 25B in Skvde References: <003101c11bfb$8aacb480$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > Well, this is a knockout event. So, the side that changed its call > gets -3 IMPs (L25B). The other side gets -3 IMPs as well, because that > is what it lost on the board. We average these scores per L86B, and > arrive at a flat board (the OS is -3 IMPs at one table, +3 IMPs at the > other). > > At least, that is what the Laws appear to me to say that we do. But here > is a curious situation - the thinking behind L25B was, as I understand > it, that the OS should accept -3 IMPs rather than have to play in a > ridiculous contract and lose a huge swing. Suppose, though, that the > contract at the other table was a part score, so that 3NT+3 would > actually gain 11 IMPs for the OS. If we average -3 at one table and +11 > at the other table, we conclude that the OS actually gains 4 IMPs on the > board. Is this what is supposed to happen? > yes, why not ? The team score is arrived at by adding the pair scores. On a normal board, the pair scores are the same and nothing happens. On the original board in Skovde, one table scores +3, and the other would have scored +3, but that is changed to -3, so the team scores 0. On David's board, one table scores +11, the other -3, so indeed that is +4. Or to put it another way, team A has scored -11 (and would see that in it's VP score), team B has scored -3. A result in VP could easily be 10-14, showing that yet again, the OS has won the match and the board. -- 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 Aug 4 06:56:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73KtwC03417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 06:55:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73Ktot03404 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 06:55:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.164.23] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15Slw5-0003N0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:52:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c11c5d$feb203a0$17a401d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:50:55 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > Well Eric, we both know that, > I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then > I'll rule against him. > Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't > thought of. I allow him to tell me. > I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I > need a "could have known" somewhere. In the context of which Law? South has committed no infraction by passing slowly. He has not deceived an opponent in a way that he could have known could work to his benefit. Under which Law, containing the words "could have known", do you propose to rule against South? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 07:20:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73LK3D08355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:20:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73LJct08292 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:19:54 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id 9CA8D2A4D58; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:15:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 563502A4925 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:15:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from m6j4g4 (pi36.krakow.cvx.ppp.tpnet.pl [217.99.209.36]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id 4E56C38A for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:16:16 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 23:14:36 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Konrad Ciborowski Subject: Re: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto 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" Message-Id: <20010803211616.4E56C38A@poczta.interia.pl> X-EMID: ed140acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 01-08-03 15:04:07, "David Kent" wrote: >You made a 0% play and you want redress??? > >-- >Dave Kent There are two different issues here. Consider this (an incident described in the Polish bridge press): Several years ago an experienced declarer played 4S against a pair of two youngsters. There was a lot of talking going on; the youngsters were happy the the champions were treating them as equals. Declarer had to tackle the trump suit: A109xx - J8x He called for the jack from dummy and his RHO went into the tank. The declarer "jokingly" remarked: - Put up that queen; I'll finnesse it anyway. The youngster shrugged and cover the jack with the king from Kxxx only to see his partner's singleton queen drop. Here certainly the defender made a 0% play but would you let declarer (who knew exactly what he was doing) get away with it? In this case and in the Marv's case also I would certainly give a PP to declarer for violating the L74C4 and L74B3 respectively. The question is if we can use L73F2 to adjust. I think we can and I would. That's what "could have known" is for. What if declarer's behavior was quite innocent? He will pay for it exactly as if he committed a revoke quite innocently. We don't want people gain from this type of behavior and we are equipped with the tools to stop it. Let's use them. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------- 1800 ofert LAST MINUTE czeka na Ciebie! http://turystyka.interia.pl/id/bank/minute/www/last/minute -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 07:27:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73LREE09311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:27:14 +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 f73LR8t09295 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:27:09 +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 RAA11452 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA27395 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:24:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108032124.RAA27395@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: "David Burn" > In the context of which Law? South has committed no infraction by > passing slowly. The one about "inadvertent variations in tempo," 73D1. If there is no bridge reason for the pause, then it's an irregularity, and 72B1 makes the irregularity into an infraction if the player "could have known." The only problem is the usual one of bridge judgment. If the player gives the obvious explanation for the pause, Tim will rule it a valid bridge reason but Herman will rule it isn't. What this tells us (again!) is that TD's must consult on judgment rulings, but I can't see any theoretical problem in the ruling once you accept one bridge judgment or the other. I think we all agree that you have to ask the player the reason for the pause. If he says he was thinking about Wendy, then it's automatic to adjust the score (even though we probably believe him!). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 07:52:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73LqDP14001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:52:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73Lq6t13985 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:52:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f73LlUe16044 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:47:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108032147.f73LlUe16044@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:47:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The thread "Coffeehouse in Toronto" reminded me on an incident from last night at our unit game. Note: The Washington area unit game is a fairly strong game. Last night, we had a somewhat small game for our weekly game with 36 tables in the open game and 12 in the 199er game. We typically run 55-60 tables each Thursday night. In addition we have world and multiple national champions that play regularly there. So, by and large, it is a strong game when the field is stacked. Last night, the field was mixed and we had a decent flight A player playing with a moderately new partner of good talent and rapidly increasing experience. They were playing against a pair of Flight C players. The decent flight A player (we'll call him John Doe) was in a hopeless game and faced the following holding in a side suit (dummy on top): A8x 9x QJTx K7xx So, declarer lead up to the "8". Because of the noise and hubbub (last board of the round and the noise from people changing rounds early, etc) RHO heard "ace" and played low without realizing that dummy had played the "8". After he tabled his "x", he said "hey, you played the A" and was informed by all at the table that he was incorrect and the "8" was played. Now, the director ruled that the player should have made sure of the card designated, but he had heard "ace" and there wasn't a question to him. The director also said that since the "A" was played, the player could have looked at it himself and awarded the trick to declarer. And declarer made 10 tricks when there were only 9 to be made. Afterwards when we went out, one of the other players in the discussion group when he heard about this, thought that the Flight A player was playing fairly by not allowing the Flight C player to change his play. Discussion ensued. The Flight A player said that he knew there was no play unless there was a mistake and he deliberately played low to the "8" to see if he could goad a mistake from an opponent although he did make sure to say eight and not ace. He explicitly avoided any type of "s" sound in announcing the card, but he knew that with the noise level in the room that it could be mis-interpreted. So, do you think the director should have awarded the trick the other way? Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A player to try this "coup" of his? Just curious what others think about it. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 08:13:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73MCvW17588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:12:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f73MCpt17581 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:12:51 +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 QGWMDL75; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:09:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007301c11b8a$b2c0c860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <3B6991AA.12929.1BE1CF4@localhost> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:21:45 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree entirely with what Marv wrote. >This subject reminds me of the role of English grammar books. They >are supposed to reflect the way intelligent people use the languge, >reporting only that without creating rules of their own. Not true of >many. > >Similarly, the Laws of bridge should reflect the way good bridge >players think the game should be played. Not the lower echelon, who >are the equivalent of illiterates. Not BLs, who love complexity and >obscure language. And not TDs, pros, club owners, or politicos, who >have conflicts of interest. > >I hope the drafting committee meeting in Montreal in 2002 will share >that opinion. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 08:13:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f73MDfc17619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:13:41 +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 (f52.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f73MDZt17612 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:13:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:10:30 -0700 Received: from 195.67.213.147 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Aug 2001 22:10:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.67.213.147] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 22:10:30 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2001 22:10:30.0629 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BC78950:01C11C69] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk B28 AT7 D:W J6 N/S 953 AQJT4 83 J9642 A953 KQT82 AQT62 K 65 K7 KQ5 74 J874 9832 W N E S P 1D! 1S 1NT P P 2H P P(1) 3C P P 3H(2) P P(3) P (1) Before passing West asked the meaning of 1D and was told either 11-13 balanced or 10-15 with at least four diamonds. (2) Before bidding West asked the meaning of 3C and was told 5-4 or 4-5 in the minors. (3) Before East passed South added to his previous explanation: now he said 3C showed 5-4 or 4-5 in the minors, or possibly 11-13 with very good clubs. The Director was called at (3). He should, of course, have allowed West to take his 3H back, but failed to do so. At the end of the auction but before the play West said he would have bid "this", and wrote "4H" on a piece of paper and gave it to the Director. At the end of the hand West complained, saying he would have bid 4H not 3H with a correct explanation. He offered the piece of paper as evidence. Ten tricks were made. How should you now rule as Director? In Sweden L12C3 is *not* available to Directors. This will be appealed. How should you now rule as the AC? In Sweden L12C3 *is* available to ACs. If you want a little fun then you can also guess how the Director and AC did rule: I was a member of the AC. -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.com bluejak666@hotmail.com Web: blakjak.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Aug 4 10:06:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7405vm20889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:05:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0 (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7405nt20884 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:05:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3-0 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f7400rW08872; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:00:53 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-add r.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:57:40 -0400 To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:56 AM +0200 8/3/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >AG : I swear that in my book, the footnote to L62 mentions 43B2c, and that >43B2c does exists. It reads (translated from French) : Hm. I based my comments on the ACBL version posted on their website. DWS has links on his site to that version, and to English and European versions of the laws. The EBL version (in English) has no footnote to law 62, and no 43B2c. The English version has the footnote, but again no 43B2c. Tentative conclusion: either you aren't looking at a current (1997) version of the laws, or whoever published it took the liberty of adding something not approved by the Promulgating Bodies. Lessee: you said >My version is the official French version of 1997. Scan sent on request. So you *are* looking at a current version. I revise my conclusion: the French NCBO took the liberty of modifying the laws. Not sure that's kosher . Scan not necessary - I believe you. :-) I wonder what other substantive changes have been introduced by NCBOs into the Laws - and how the WBF feels about that. :-) 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/AwUBO2s7jL2UW3au93vOEQKMKgCg0IWh6a+PThvNodKZw008O/X188wAn3qA rTM8bMmtW8qIggn9QPyWVvHj =JC5B -----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 Aug 4 10:25:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f740Omu21497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:24:48 +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 (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f740Oft21490 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:24:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f740KQD02151 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:15:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ton Kooijman wrote: >In my opinion the only 'normal' feeling in this problem is to allow dummy to >draw attention to this irregularity. Now we might have a problem if the laws >don't allow dummy to do so. And reading Ed's reply he seems to proof that it >is not allowed, which creates the problem. So dummy is not allowed to say: >'you revoked partner'. But we still have L 42B1, which means that dummy may >ask: 'don't you have a heart anymore?', showing that he has more rights than >just preventing an irregularity to occur (or that he is still trying to >prevent an irregularity: the revoke becoming established). >You are right, it was probably never meant to be used for such a case, but >is it legally wrong to use it? I don't think so. If the laws are not strong >enough (I prefer to say: if you think you found another leak) we have to be >clever (a leak with no water coming through) (something similar is a saying >in Dutch). I might word this as "when there are inherent contradictions in the laws, we must judge how best to proceed". And I might well agree. However, I think we're talking apples and oranges here, unless I've become confused again. :-) The original case, or at least, the case I was addressing, is when declarer revokes *in dummy*. Law 42B1 allows dummy to ask if declarer has no cards in the suit led *when declarer plays another suit from his hand*. So 42B1 does not apply to the case under discussion. Or so it seems to me. I think, off the top of my head, that dummy is allowed to ask if declarer has no cards in the suit led when declarer plays another suit from his hand - 42B1 specifically allows dummy to do that, so it seems silly to rule under Law 43 that he can't. But the case in point is different, since 42B1 does not address revokes *in dummy*. 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/AwUBO2tAFr2UW3au93vOEQLMpgCfdxyqwhNLUJFS9IepMnL9DhrwCwkAoKSy n594SYxj/okJ0Y8JgUrU1SCZ =/dCF -----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 Aug 4 10:56:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f740tvu22771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:55:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f740tot22763 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:55:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA15310 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA28144 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:52:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:52:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108040052.UAA28144@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate argument X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > After much thinking about this simple case :), logic tells me that we must > allow dummy to ask. If we did not, it means that if dummy asks, the revoke > becomes established, may not be corrected, but since dummy's revoke is not > penalized, the NOS are worse off than if dummy hadn't said anything Your copy of the FLB doesn't have L64C? Or does it omit "including those not subject to penalty?" Have the French been at it again? :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 13:27:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f743QrJ03771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:26:53 +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.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [65.162.17.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f743Qht03763 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com-32.connectnc.net [65.162.23.32]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA18001 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:23:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <008801c11c94$80e4cb60$2017a241@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: References: <3B6AB60D.11932.D4023C@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:21:07 -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 Where are the other two clods at this table that are equally responsible for the dummy and required to point out an irregularity at the table when it occurs? The whole table is responsible for the dummy revoke and prevention thereof. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "stefan filonardi" To: Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) > Hello, > > wanted to keep quiet but .... > > I think some posting are distorting a lot the laws to let them > fit in what we consider 'bridge'. > > imho there is absolute no logical flaw between the law 42 and > 43, a perfect work by the law-makers, absolute no problem there. > > Where the big crash happens, is when after having seen that > dummy is not allowed to call attention to the irregularity we > read: > > ---- > LAW62 > A. A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the > irregulatiry before it becomes etablished. > ---- > > So we are back to our daily life bridge and even if it is a > little bit long way even the law covers our daily experience if > I am not totally wrong :-) > > Dummy not allowed to call attention. > > Dummy revokes. > > Dummy must correct. > > Dummy not allowed to play a card by his own. > > Dummy asks player what he should play. > > ciao stefan > > PS > all statemets above by a layman. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 13:52:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f743q1008910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:52:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f743prt08887 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:51:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.158.34] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SsQl-0001Wv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 04:48:51 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c11c98$1f07dbe0$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200108032124.RAA27395@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 04:47:00 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > In the context of which Law? South has committed no infraction by > > passing slowly. > > The one about "inadvertent variations in tempo," 73D1. If there is no > bridge reason for the pause, then it's an irregularity, and 72B1 makes > the irregularity into an infraction if the player "could have known." This wasn't an inadvertent variation in tempo. South was thinking about what he perceived to be a bridge problem. He shouldn't have been, of course, since he didn't have a bridge problem. But he was - so his variation was not inadvertent. (Incidentally, my reading of L73D1 does not indicate that there must be a "bridge reason" for the pause before it becomes an irregularity. The lack of a bridge reason renders the pause "inadvertent", but even an inadvertent pause is not irregular if the position is such that the pause could not work to the benefit of the player's side.) > I think we all agree that you have to ask the player the reason for the > pause. If he says he was thinking about Wendy, then it's automatic to > adjust the score (even though we probably believe him!). Indeed, for that would make his tempo variation inadvertent, and the position was such that a variation might work to the benefit of his side. But by Konrad's account, South thought for about a minute in the context of the final of the Life Masters' Pairs - it seems fairly obvious from this that he wasn't thinking about some extraneous matter. And if that is so, L73D1 cannot apply. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 14:03:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74432W09465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:03:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7442ut09458 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.158.34] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SsbR-0006e8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 04:59:54 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 04:58:02 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > The original case, or at least, the case I was addressing, is when > declarer revokes *in dummy*. Law 42B1 allows dummy to ask if declarer > has no cards in the suit led *when declarer plays another suit from > his hand*. So 42B1 does not apply to the case under discussion. Or so > it seems to me. > > I think, off the top of my head, that dummy is allowed to ask if > declarer has no cards in the suit led when declarer plays another > suit from his hand - 42B1 specifically allows dummy to do that, so it > seems silly to rule under Law 43 that he can't. But the case in point > is different, since 42B1 does not address revokes *in dummy*. Quite so. But 42B2 specifically allows dummy to prevent *any* irregularity by declarer, and - as Ed rightly says - it is silly to rule under Law 43 that he can't. Now, for declarer to revoke in playing a card from dummy would be an irregularity, and dummy may try to prevent it by pointing out that there are some cards of the suit led in dummy. Frankly, the depths to which this discussion has gone are a complete and utter mystery to me. Does anyone seriously believe that if the following situation were to occur: Declarer: "Small heart, please" Dummy: "No, you have to play a diamond!" there would be a call for the Director in an attempt to establish a revoke from dummy that could not be penalised in any case? Not that the situation can occur, of course, for as even its instigator acknowledges, Law 42 supersedes Law 43, and not the other way around, so that the position is fully and sensibly covered by the Laws (without recourse to L64 or any other "ultimate argument"). I think, to be honest, that if Ed had read L42B2 before firing off his original missive, much bandwidth might have been saved. Not that it hasn't been entertaining. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 16:40:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f746dXF25543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:39:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f746dPt25537 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:39:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-35.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.35]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f746aL023043 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:36:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6AFEE4.265BEF1D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 21:43:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > One does not "penalise the hesitation", for it is not an offence. > > Well I think it would be an offense *only* if it was > a) Inadvertent in a situation where it would often work to the player's > advantage > b) A deliberate attempt to forestall (an ethical) partner from bidding > > I doubt a) applies here. I'd have expected some comment from the original > poster to that effect were it plausible. > I doubt this too. I strongly suspect South knew what he was doing. > > But this "note-making" business is all eyewash, and is all too > > frequently used as a cop-out by directors who say, in effect: "You can > > cheat this time, but don't do it again". > > OK there a some approaches one can try - for instance I might ask Mr > Hesitator if he was aware that hesitating so that partner will pass is > against the rules. Obviously if he says "no" to that I can adjust and > give a warning/PP without any accusation of actual cheating. > That is the best attempt yet. Quite likely this player did not know this maneuvre was not allowed. So we can be using L73B1, and don't need to use L73B2. > But apart from that I don't think the evidence is anything like strong > enough to justify a cheating accusation (let alone secure a conviction). OK, maybe we cannot. Surely the player will not admit that he did it on purpose. > What the hell can a TD do, in isolation, apart from make a note? > A national database of such situations is, I guess, a remote possibility. > Are we certain we cannot use a type of "could have known" ? -- 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 Aug 4 18:15:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f748EaZ27824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:14:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f748EOt27813 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-109.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.109]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f748BU216335 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:11:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <025001c11cbd$9e0af740$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 09:43:06 +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 "David Stevenson" wrote: > B28 AT7 > D:W J6 > N/S 953 > AQJT4 > 83 J9642 > A953 KQT82 > AQT62 K > 65 K7 > KQ5 > 74 > J874 > 9832 > > W N E S > P 1D! 1S 1NT > P P 2H P > P(1) 3C P P > 3H(2) P P(3) P > > (1) Before passing West asked the meaning of 1D and was told either 11-13 > balanced or 10-15 with at least four diamonds. > > (2) Before bidding West asked the meaning of 3C and was told 5-4 or 4-5 in > the minors. > > (3) Before East passed South added to > his previous explanation: now he said > 3C showed 5-4 or 4-5 in the minors, > or possibly 11-13 with very good clubs. > > The Director was called at (3). He should, of course, have allowed West > to take his 3H back, but failed to do so. At the end of the auction but > before the play West said he would have bid "this", and wrote "4H" on a > piece of paper and gave it to the Director. > > At the end of the hand West complained, > saying he would have bid 4H not 3H > with a correct explanation. He offered the > piece of paper as evidence. Ten > tricks were made. > > How should you now rule as Director? West's explanations are not convincing because he had fully correct information after (1) but decided to pass rather than invite with 3H. I do not think that a player who did not invite with 3H when the information was "11-13, balanced, or 10-15 unbalanced with at least four diamonds" will later bid 4H when the information is "11-13, balanced with very good clubs, or 10-15 unbalanced with at least 5/4 in the minors" I would very strongly tend to let the table result stand despite the director's error, because I would assume that even with the correct information this players would not have bid 4H. 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 Sat Aug 4 18:15:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f748EYl27823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:14:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f748ENt27811 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 18:14:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-109.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.109]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f748BT216319 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:11:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <024e01c11cbd$9d1ffb00$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 08:33:57 +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 "Herman De Wael" wrote: > I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then > I'll rule against him. > > Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't > thought of. I allow him to tell me. > I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I > need a "could have known" somewhere. "If it hesitates shoot it" 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 Sat Aug 4 20:11:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74AAoS00586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:10:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74AAet00578 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:10:41 +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 f74A7XH14497; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:07:33 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA06932; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:07:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:07:33 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde 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 Fri, 3 Aug 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > B28 AT7 > D:W J6 > N/S 953 > AQJT4 > 83 J9642 > A953 KQT82 > AQT62 K > 65 K7 > KQ5 > 74 > J874 > 9832 > > W N E S > P 1D! 1S 1NT > P P 2H P > P(1) 3C P P > 3H(2) P P(3) P > > (1) Before passing West asked the meaning of 1D and was told either 11-13 > balanced or 10-15 with at least four diamonds. > > (2) Before bidding West asked the meaning of 3C and was told 5-4 or 4-5 in > the minors. > > (3) Before East passed South added to his previous explanation: now he said > 3C showed 5-4 or 4-5 in the minors, or possibly 11-13 with very good clubs. > > The Director was called at (3). He should, of course, have allowed West > to take his 3H back, but failed to do so. At the end of the auction but > before the play West said he would have bid "this", and wrote "4H" on a > piece of paper and gave it to the Director. > > At the end of the hand West complained, saying he would have bid 4H not 3H > with a correct explanation. He offered the piece of paper as evidence. Ten > tricks were made. > > How should you now rule as Director? In Sweden L12C3 is *not* available > to Directors. > > This will be appealed. How should you now rule as the AC? In Sweden > L12C3 *is* available to ACs. I consider this mainly the TD's mistake: if he had correctly applied the laws, then we wouldn't have had this problem. Now we have 2 conflicting pieces of evidence: west's statement that he'd bid 4H with the correct explanation and west's hand plus the passes over both 1NT and 2H. Since it is impossible to say what would have happened if the law had been correctly applied, I use 82C and score A+/A+ for both sides. > > If you want a little fun then you can also guess how the Director and AC > did rule: I was a member of the AC. TD: Score stands (he probably didn't realize his mistake). AC: 82C 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 Sat Aug 4 21:25:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74BMZv02078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:22:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74BMRt02066 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:22:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.27.246] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15SzSl-0001KI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 12:19:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:17:28 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote a load of rubbish, because I didn't have all the messages in this thread. Apologies to Ed and to Martin, who was in fact the instigator of this problem. Also, some of what I said had in fact already been covered. More apologies. However... > Quite so. But 42B2 specifically allows dummy to prevent *any* > irregularity by declarer, and - as Ed rightly says - it is silly to rule > under Law 43 that he can't. Now, for declarer to revoke in playing a > card from dummy would be an irregularity, and dummy may try to prevent > it by pointing out that there are some cards of the suit led in dummy. The argument against this is that declarer has already "played" the heart from dummy by naming it, so that dummy is too late to "prevent" him from so doing. It is too late, in other words, for dummy to act under the provision of 42B2 - instead, he must remain silent under 43A1b, and solemnly play a heart (or, more accurately, place a heart in the played position, since it has already been played). But a played card may be withdrawn to correct an illegal play (L47B), and a player must correct a revoke if he becomes aware of it before it is established (L62A). Thus, if dummy *does* tell declarer that he has to follow suit, then (as far as I can see) declarer has to withdraw the heart and play a diamond. In the case where dummy had forfeited his rights, and declarer had revoked from the *closed* hand, this would not be so - the position would be treated as an established revoke. But in a case where the revoke is from *dummy's* hand, I do not see that the footnote in 62B2 can apply; the revoke may (indeed, must) be corrected. Should one then penalise dummy for a breach of 43A1b? Well, I wouldn't. However, if those guys in Bali can drag themselves off the beach, they may care to consider the wording of 42B2 if they want it to cover this case (which isn't infrequent in acutal play). David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 4 23:20:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74DJPI07900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:19:25 +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 f74DJIt07891 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 23:19:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f74DGFm12706 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:16:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:16 +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: <3B6AFEE4.265BEF1D@village.uunet.be> Herman (in the context of a non-inadvertent hesitation working to a hesitator's advantage) wrote: > Are we certain we cannot use a type of "could have known" ? I am certain I don't want to. If the TD accepts the reason for the hesitation then there has been no infraction and the score should stand. If the TD considers the explanation a load of old rubbish and that hesitator was cheating then the case should be sent to the appropriate L&E committee. I believe making "could have known" adjustments against hesitations where there is a "genuine bridge problem" would be horribly bad for the game. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 00:09:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74E9ai17759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74E9Nt17720 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f74E6L025071 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:06:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:06 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde 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: Henk wrote: > I consider this mainly the TD's mistake: if he had correctly applied the > laws, then we wouldn't have had this problem. Now we have 2 conflicting > pieces of evidence: west's statement that he'd bid 4H with the correct > explanation and west's hand plus the passes over both 1NT and 2H. They don't seem conflicting to me. West wants to re-evaluate his hand upwards when he discovers that North's values are mostly in clubs rather than diamonds - perfectly reasonable. > Since it is impossible to say what would have happened if the law had > been correctly applied, I use 82C and score A+/A+ for both sides. NO NO NO NO NO! Just treat both sides as non-offending and give EW +420 (4H=) and NS -170 (3H+1) - WTP. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 00:09:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74E9ae17760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74E9Ot17722 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f74E6LG25081 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:06:21 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:06 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes 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: <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> This is not particularly addressed to David's points, just a general expression of amazement. Come on guys. Surely we can say "It's OK for dummy to just play the card as he is told, it is equally OK for him to draw attention to the revoke whether he has lost his rights or not." Either way the table can no doubt have a little laugh at declarer's expense and get on with 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 Sun Aug 5 02:28:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74GSJD06771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 02:28:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0 (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74GSCt06767 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 02:28:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout2-0 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f74GNwD28910 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:17:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:17 PM +0100 8/4/01, David Burn wrote: >I wrote a load of rubbish, because I didn't have all the messages in >this thread. Apologies to Ed and to Martin, who was in fact the >instigator of this problem. I wondered about that. Apology accepted. :-) >Also, some of what I said had in fact >already been covered. More apologies. However... [snip] >Should one then penalise dummy for a breach of 43A1b? Well, I wouldn't. [snip some more] Perhaps a PP (warning) would be appropriate. 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/AwUBO2wh572UW3au93vOEQKpdgCgrKyQAhQ0nrfx1hq4MuUH+znYdcYAnjs3 0D+OaIpwn6h0VgmGeeZBe+Hl =N8me -----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 Aug 5 03:31:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74HTUI14549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:29:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74HTOt14537 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:29:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaui39.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.105]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA19443 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:26:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001501c11d0a$90b760e0$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200108032147.f73LlUe16044@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:26:14 -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: "Ted Ying" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 5:47 PM Subject: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > > The thread "Coffeehouse in Toronto" reminded me on an incident > from last night at our unit game. > > Note: The Washington area unit game is a fairly strong game. > Last night, we had a somewhat small game for our weekly game > with 36 tables in the open game and 12 in the 199er game. We > typically run 55-60 tables each Thursday night. In addition > we have world and multiple national champions that play > regularly there. So, by and large, it is a strong game when > the field is stacked. > > Last night, the field was mixed and we had a decent flight A > player playing with a moderately new partner of good talent > and rapidly increasing experience. They were playing against > a pair of Flight C players. The decent flight A player (we'll > call him John Doe) was in a hopeless game and faced the following > holding in a side suit (dummy on top): > > A8x > 9x QJTx > K7xx > > So, declarer lead up to the "8". Because of the noise and > hubbub (last board of the round and the noise from people > changing rounds early, etc) RHO heard "ace" and played low > without realizing that dummy had played the "8". After he > tabled his "x", he said "hey, you played the A" and was > informed by all at the table that he was incorrect and the > "8" was played. > > Now, the director ruled that the player should have made > sure of the card designated, but he had heard "ace" and there > wasn't a question to him. The director also said that since > the "A" was played, the player could have looked at it himself > and awarded the trick to declarer. And declarer made 10 tricks > when there were only 9 to be made. > [snip] > > So, do you think the director should have awarded the trick > the other way? Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A > player to try this "coup" of his? > > Just curious what others think about it. > > -Ted. > > Perfectly legal. Declarer called for the eight, which Dummy correctly played. Defender missed both chances to get it right. In a hopeless contract, it is perfectly legal (and even expected) to try and sneak a trick through inattentive defenders, provided it is done at normal tempo and inflection (using legal plays). Defender has hopefully learned an important lesson in maintaining concentration until the hand is over, even amid the distraction of the ending of the event. Why on earth would a TD even consider a score adjustment in the complete absence of an infraction? 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 Sun Aug 5 03:41:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74HfGY16534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:41:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74HfAt16521 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 03:41:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-41-79.frankfurt.gigabell.net [194.29.41.79] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f74HcF209229 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 19:38:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <05a501c11d0c$c94f1220$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 19:36:58 +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 "Tim West-meads" wrote: > In-Reply-To: > Henk wrote: > > > I consider this mainly the TD's mistake: if he had correctly applied the > > laws, then we wouldn't have had this problem. Now we have 2 conflicting > > pieces of evidence: west's statement that he'd bid 4H with the correct > > explanation and west's hand plus the passes over both 1NT and 2H. > > They don't seem conflicting to me. West wants to re-evaluate his hand > upwards when he - perfectly reasonable. I disagree with your bridge judgement that with the correct information west would have "discovered that North's values are mostly in clubs rather than diamonds" Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 05:08:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74J8PD19943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:08:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74J8It19939 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:08:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.77.135] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15T6jX-0002kE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 20:05:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c11d18$1f8f7340$874d7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <05a501c11d0c$c94f1220$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:03:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: > > They don't seem conflicting to me. West wants to re-evaluate his hand > > upwards when he - perfectly reasonable. > > I disagree with your bridge judgement that with > the correct information west would have "discovered that North's > values are mostly in clubs rather than diamonds" I'm not sure about this. Obviously, South's second explanation (both minors or 11-13 with very good clubs) was hogwash - how is South supposed to know which? There is empirical evidence that the North-South agreement was in fact 11-13 with clubs - now, if West had been told *this*, he might very well have chosen to rectify his previous errors of omission by bidding 4H (he should probably have bid rather more strongly at his third turn, of course). David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 05:38:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74JcYY19990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:38:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74JcSt19986 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-99.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.99]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f74JZZ218977 for ; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:35:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <069901c11d1d$2ceef740$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <05a501c11d0c$c94f1220$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> <001601c11d18$1f8f7340$874d7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 21:39:21 +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 Burn" wrote: > Thomas wrote: > > > > They don't seem conflicting to me. > > > West wants to re-evaluate his hand > > > upwards when he - perfectly reasonable. > > > > I disagree with your bridge judgement that with > > the correct information west would have "discovered that North's > > values are mostly in clubs rather than diamonds" > > I'm not sure about this. Obviously, South's second explanation (both > minors or 11-13 with very good clubs) was hogwash - how is South > supposed to know which? There is empirical evidence that the North-South > agreement was in fact 11-13 with clubs - now, if West had been told > *this*, he might very well have chosen to rectify his previous errors of > omission by bidding 4H (he should probably have bid rather more strongly > at his third turn, of course). This is a valid point, indeed. But then, I have seen strong pairs play such agreements, especially in balancing situations. The TD probably should ask them what 2NT in the balancing seat would have been. I would not expect them to have system notes which cover such a rare bidding sequence. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 07:46:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74LjeK20105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:45:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f64.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.64]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74LjZt20101 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:45:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:42:28 -0700 Received: from 195.67.212.67 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:42:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.67.212.67] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:42:28 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2001 21:42:28.0298 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B71F2A0:01C11D2E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was asked a question in Skovde, and realised I had no idea of the answer: how many countries allow their Directors to use L12C3? For that matter, how about Appeals Committees? Unless you have some compelling reason to answer via BLML, I suggest you send me an email at : I shall post a summary on BLML. So perhaps you could answer the following: 1 Which is your country? 2 Are your Appeals Committees allowed to use L12C3 in top national competitions? YES / NO 3 Are your Appeals Committees allowed to use L12C3 in other competitions? YES / NO 4 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in top national competitions? YES / NO 5 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in other competitions? YES / NO 6 Any other comments? -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.com bluejak666@hotmail.com Web: blakjak.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Aug 5 07:57:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f74LvPO20124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:57:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f106.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.106]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f74LvKt20120 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 07:57:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 4 Aug 2001 14:54:13 -0700 Received: from 195.67.212.67 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:54:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [195.67.212.67] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 21:54:13 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2001 21:54:13.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[00127590:01C11D30] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk B56 87 D:W Q73 E/W T87 AKJ97 KJ63 T952 AJT2 K654 J3 AQ9 T85 63 AQ4 98 K6542 Q42 W N E S P P P 1NT ..P(1) P Dbl P 2H 2NT(2) P P P (1) Agreed hesitation (2) Alerted by South. East contends, supported by West, that North sighed deeply when his partner (who appeared to be his wife) alerted. North said he did not sigh but sounded unconvincing. South did not notice anything. I was called by both sides at the end of the auction, E/W to complain about the alleged sigh, N/S to complain about the hesitation. No questions were asked about the meaning of the bidding. If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.com bluejak666@hotmail.com Web: blakjak.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Aug 5 10:33:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f750WsV20762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:32:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f750Wkt20758 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:32:48 +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 AAA10959 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 00:29:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 01:06:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes 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: <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> >This is not particularly addressed to David's points, just a general >expression of amazement. > >Come on guys. Surely we can say "It's OK for dummy to just play the card >as he is told, it is equally OK for him to draw attention to the revoke >whether he has lost his rights or not." Either way the table can no >doubt have a little laugh at declarer's expense and get on with the hand. > >Tim > We had one this afternoon in the 5 pound game. We did all laugh at declarer's expense, and we did all get on with the hand. -- 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 Aug 5 11:07:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7517Af20826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:07:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75173t20822 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:07:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.113.28] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15TCKf-0002gW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:03:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c11d4a$3a97d920$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 02:01:56 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > >Should one then penalise dummy for a breach of 43A1b? Well, I wouldn't. > > [snip some more] > > Perhaps a PP (warning) would be appropriate. Perhaps, on the other hand, it wouldn't. Again, I feel the need for a reality check; if declarer plays a diamond when dummy has diamonds, and asks for a heart, are we really going to warn dummy for saying "No, you have to play a diamond"? If that is what the Laws say we have to do, then the Laws, sir, are... David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 12:01:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7520il21020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:00:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7520Zt21016 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:00:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.113.28] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15TDAY-0002na-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 02:57:31 +0100 Message-ID: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 02:55:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > > Since it is impossible to say what would have happened if the law had > > been correctly applied, I use 82C and score A+/A+ for both sides. > > NO NO NO NO NO! Just treat both sides as non-offending and give EW > +420 (4H=) and NS -170 (3H+1) - WTP. Somewhat major. You can't do this. Either NS have offended (by misexplaining 3C) or they have not (in my view, they have, for South's explanation of 3C is obviously rubbish). If they have not offended, then the table result stands; if they have offended, then there is the question of whether EW have been damaged. This is a difficult question for the AC, because on the one hand West passed 2H when he had correct information about 1D; on the other, he said (and provided strong empirical evidence) that he would have bid 4H had he had correct information about 3C and before he knew the outcome of a heart contract. You cannot, in short, refuse to consider the question of whether NS had offended simply because the TD forgot to give West his pass back. While all this was going on, the TD cocked up a ruling. But he did not do so in such a way that "no rectification will allow the board to be played normally"; play was allowed to continue (normally), and then EW were (normally) allowed to make their case regarding misinformation to the TD and the AC. The TD was obviously out of it, so I don't really care what he decided. If the AC was convinced (a) that misinformation had occurred and (b) that West had been damaged thereby, then they would have ruled 4H making; if not, they would have ruled 3H+1; if they wanted to award a weighted score, this was within their purview. Again, what they did is of little interest to me, provided that it was one of the above. But there is no case for an adjustment as provided in L82C. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 18:33:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f758WQN03646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:32:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f758WBt03607 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:32:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk (28.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.28]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f758Eup22029 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:14:56 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <008401c11d87$8696ba20$1c82b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 11:18:31 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:54 AM Subject: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde > > B56 87 > D:W Q73 > E/W T87 > AKJ97 > KJ63 T952 > AJT2 K654 > J3 AQ9 > T85 63 > AQ4 > 98 > K6542 > Q42 > > W N E S > P P P 1NT > ..P(1) P Dbl P > 2H 2NT(2) P P > P > > (1) Agreed hesitation > (2) Alerted by South. East contends, supported by West, that North sighed > deeply when his partner (who appeared to be his wife) alerted. North said > he did not sigh but sounded unconvincing. South did not notice anything. > > I was called by both sides at the end of the auction, E/W to complain > about the alleged sigh, N/S to complain about the hesitation. No questions > were asked about the meaning of the bidding. > > If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? About hesitation. Pas is LA, so I rule 1NT for both sides. About North sighed. I believe, that North really sighed more or less deeply and South really did not notice anything. In a real life many Norths sighed deeply independent of when his wife alerted, or not alerted, or drives a car and in all this cases Souths did not notice anything. I think that 74C2 is appropriated but I won't give PP if my attention is attracted to this North for the first time. Only warning. But I have questions for S. What does mean your allert? Suppouse she answers 'both minor', then I give PP. 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 Sun Aug 5 18:50:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f758oNw05933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:50:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f758oFt05927 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:50:15 +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 f758GqH17505; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:16:52 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA14542; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:16:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:16:52 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Tim West-meads cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde 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, 4 Aug 2001, Tim West-meads wrote: > Henk wrote: > > > I consider this mainly the TD's mistake: if he had correctly applied the > > laws, then we wouldn't have had this problem. Now we have 2 conflicting > > pieces of evidence: west's statement that he'd bid 4H with the correct > > explanation and west's hand plus the passes over both 1NT and 2H. > > They don't seem conflicting to me. West wants to re-evaluate his hand > upwards when he discovers that North's values are mostly in clubs rather > than diamonds - perfectly reasonable. He hasn't discovered that, he just knows that north has both minors or just clubs behind him. xx/xx/KJ9xx/AKxx in north is still possible. (I don't think the NS agreement is playable, but that's another issue). And if north has a hand worth 4H, then why didn't he try for game in the previous round? > > > Since it is impossible to say what would have happened if the law had > > been correctly applied, I use 82C and score A+/A+ for both sides. > > NO NO NO NO NO! Just treat both sides as non-offending and give EW > +420 (4H=) and NS -170 (3H+1) - WTP. Eeuhh, yes, of course. 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 Aug 5 18:50:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f758oJN05932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:50:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f758oCt05924 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:50:12 +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 f758RXH18529; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:27:33 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by kantoor.ripe.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA15097; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:27:33 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: kantoor.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:27:32 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde 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, 4 Aug 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > B56 87 > D:W Q73 > E/W T87 > AKJ97 > KJ63 T952 > AJT2 K654 > J3 AQ9 > T85 63 > AQ4 > 98 > K6542 > Q42 > > W N E S > P P P 1NT > ..P(1) P Dbl P > 2H 2NT(2) P P > P > > (1) Agreed hesitation > (2) Alerted by South. East contends, supported by West, that North sighed > deeply when his partner (who appeared to be his wife) alerted. North said > he did not sigh but sounded unconvincing. South did not notice anything. > > I was called by both sides at the end of the auction, E/W to complain > about the alleged sigh, N/S to complain about the hesitation. No questions > were asked about the meaning of the bidding. > > If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? Did you ask south why she alerted 2NT and then suddenly passed? This sounds as if south thought 2NT was Lebensohl, then decided on body-language that NS don't play Lebensohl in this auction. 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 Aug 5 20:37:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75Aaoj06872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 20:36:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75Aaet06867 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 20:36:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-217.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.217]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f75AXS025568 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:33:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 09:16:58 +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] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi David, David Burn wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > Well Eric, we both know that, > > > > I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then > > I'll rule against him. > > > > Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't > > thought of. I allow him to tell me. > > I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I > > need a "could have known" somewhere. > > In the context of which Law? South has committed no infraction by > passing slowly. He has not deceived an opponent in a way that he could > have known could work to his benefit. Under which Law, containing the > words "could have known", do you propose to rule against South? > Exactly the problem. L73D2 is not of application L73D1 speaks only in general terms L73B2 is too harsh - we don't need to prove cheating in order to rule, I hope so all we're left with is L73B1 South is not allowed to pass the information "I would like to see you pass" to North. I believe he has done so. North has received this information, and altough he does not know he has received it, he does indeed pass. Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one minute to pass ? Are you of the opinion David, that we have discovered a flaw in the laws? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 21:20:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75BKN807382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:20:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75BKGt07378 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:20:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-41-54.frankfurt.gigabell.net [194.29.41.54] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f75BHF218463 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:17:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000001c11da0$ba677600$36291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:53:59 +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: > > B56 87 > D:W Q73 > E/W T87 > AKJ97 > KJ63 T952 > AJT2 K654 > J3 AQ9 > T85 63 > AQ4 > 98 > K6542 > Q42 > > W N E S > P P P 1NT > ..P(1) P Dbl P > 2H 2NT(2) P P > P > > (1) Agreed hesitation > (2) Alerted by South. East contends, supported by West, that North sighed > deeply when his partner (who appeared to be his wife) alerted. North said > he did not sigh but sounded unconvincing. South did not notice anything. > > I was called by both sides at the end of the auction, E/W to complain > about the alleged sigh, N/S to complain about the hesitation. No questions > were asked about the meaning of the bidding. > > If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? (1) Apparently the easy part. I decide that pass is an LA for East at this vulnerability. Adjusted to 1NT making whatever. (2) I first need to enquire S why she first alerted 1NT, but then passed. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 5 21:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75Be6u07442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:40:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75Bdxt07438 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:40:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-37.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.37]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BA5ED3712B; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:36:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 10:03:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better be 'yes', otherwise your NBO is infringing the laws. The EBL did not forbid AC to use 12C3. A better question could be: Is there an (silent) agreement in your NBO not to use 12C3? Or: are AC aware of the possibility to use 12C3? ton 1)Netherlands 2)yes 3)yes 4)yes 5) no, not yet 6) -- > I was asked a question in Skovde, and realised I had no idea of the >answer: how many countries allow their Directors to use L12C3? For that >matter, how about Appeals Committees? > > Unless you have some compelling reason to answer via BLML, I suggest you >send me an email at : I shall post a summary on BLML. > > So perhaps you could answer the following: > >1 Which is your country? > >2 Are your Appeals Committees allowed to use L12C3 in top national >competitions? > >YES / NO > >3 Are your Appeals Committees allowed to use L12C3 in other competitions? > >YES / NO > >4 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in top national competitions? > >YES / NO > >5 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in other competitions? > >YES / NO > >6 Any other comments? > >-- >David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak >Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.com >bluejak666@hotmail.com Web: blakjak.com > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 5 21:48:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75BmOA08472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:48:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75BmJt08468 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:48:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.42.150] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15TMLC-0000QB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 12:45:07 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c11da3$cbf6abe0$962a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:43:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > L73B2 is too harsh - we don't need to prove cheating in > order to rule, I hope Yes, you do. > so all we're left with is L73B1 > South is not allowed to pass the information "I would like > to see you pass" to North. I believe he has done so. Then you must believe that North-South are actually playing "reverse hesitations". The default meaning of a slow action is "I would like to see you not pass". Suppose North had *doubled* - what would your ruling be then? That he had done what South wanted him to do, presumably, acting on (unauthorised) information received. As Eric says, you can't hang a man for passing and also hang him for not passing on the same hand and in the same circumstances. > North > has received this information, and although he does not know > he has received it, he does indeed pass. I don't think it makes sense to say that someone has received information, but does not know that he has received it. Suppose I tell you that my birthday is in July, but you don't hear me. Are you better informed? > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > minute to pass ? Yes. Either you assert, when ruling, that South did what he did on purpose, and North did what he did knowing what South's action meant. In this case you use 73B2. Or, you do not so assert, in which case there is no infraction. > Are you of the opinion David, that we have discovered a flaw > in the laws? No. I am of the opinion that there is a flaw in the way in which we administer the Laws, for we are invariably unwilling to say: "This pair has cheated". Instead, we try to say: "This pair is of course entirely honest, but because they have done what a pair of cheats would have done, we are going to rule against them". The difficulty here is that we cannot - for once - hide behind this form of sophistry. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 01:06:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75F4ww12608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:04:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75F4pt12604 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:04:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.147.141] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15TNmp-000583-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:17:44 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c11db0$bc1dbe40$8d937ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 14:15:42 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: [DWS] 1 Which is your country? 2 Are your Appeals Committees allowed to use L12C3 in top national competitions? YES / NO [TK] > Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better be 'yes', otherwise your NBO is > infringing the laws. I had not known that Yes was a country, albeit one with a particularly lawless NBO. The only three-letter nation to have participated in international competitions until now has been Bye, whose performances, though modest, have at least been consistent. Presumably Yes has been barred from taking its place on the international stage due to the failure of its officials to conform with L12C3. Let us hope that this deplorable state of affairs is swiftly remedied. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 02:15:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75GEZF14182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 02:14:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75GESt14178 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 02:14:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-179.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.179]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f75Fdi214902 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:39:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:33:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Hi David, > > David Burn wrote: > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > > Well Eric, we both know that, > > > > > > I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then > > > I'll rule against him. > > > > > > Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't > > > thought of. I allow him to tell me. > > > I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I > > > need a "could have known" somewhere. > > > > In the context of which Law? South has committed no infraction by > > passing slowly. He has not deceived an opponent in a way that he could > > have known could work to his benefit. Under which Law, containing the > > words "could have known", do you propose to rule against South? > > > > Exactly the problem. > L73D2 is not of application > L73D1 speaks only in general terms > L73B2 is too harsh - we don't need to prove cheating in > order to rule, I hope You have to prove cheating in order to rule against N/S. > so all we're left with is L73B1 > > South is not allowed to pass the information "I would like > to see you pass" to North. I believe he has done so. S has passed the information that action will probably be better than non-action, because S has a good hand. S does indeed have a good hand. > North has received this information, > and altough he does not know > he has received it, he does indeed pass. N did bend over backwards and passed when both double and 3D are reasonable, too. This let to a worse result than if he would have doubled. > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > minute to pass ? Hesitations are not against the law, only using UI from hesitations is an infraction. If you want to rule against N/S, you have to demonstrate that S passed the UI to N that he wanted N to pass rather than bid. We have seen such hands in the past: some bidding 4H [hesitation] double with a trump stack when they were playing negative or transferable values doubles, and partner then passed based on the hesitation. The case under discussion is not such a hand. > Are you of the opinion David, that we have discovered a flaw > in the laws? This looks like a flaw in the way you want to rule rather than a flaw in the laws. 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 Aug 6 03:49:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75H40W15071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 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 hotmail.com (oe71.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75H2Nt15065 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:02:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:58:57 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.164.78] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> <001901c11d4a$3a97d920$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 05:33:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2001 16:58:57.0118 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA679FE0:01C11DCF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 8:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes | Ed wrote: | | > >Should one then penalise dummy for a breach of 43A1b? Well, I | wouldn't. | > | > [snip some more] | > | > Perhaps a PP (warning) would be appropriate. | | Perhaps, on the other hand, it wouldn't. Again, I feel the need for a | reality check; if declarer plays a diamond when dummy has diamonds, and | asks for a heart, are we really going to warn dummy for saying "No, you | have to play a diamond"? If that is what the Laws say we have to do, | then the Laws, sir, are... | | David Burn | London, England Hmm. I was under the impression that dummy is played by Declarer. That is, as opposed to a joint effort by both Dummy and Declarer. 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 Mon Aug 6 03:49:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75HnOA15551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:49:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f75HnFt15545 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:49:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f75Hk9F05177 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:46:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde 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: Henk wrote: > > They don't seem conflicting to me. West wants to re-evaluate his > > hand upwards when he discovers that North's values are mostly in > > clubs rather than diamonds - perfectly reasonable. > > He hasn't discovered that, he just knows that north has both minors or > just clubs behind him. xx/xx/KJ9xx/AKxx in north is still possible. (I > don't think the NS agreement is playable, but that's another issue). Sorry, poor wording on my part. Of course the above is still possible but in the context of the West hand I consider the 11-13 balanced with very good clubs option far more likely. That's why I think it reasonable to "guess" that North holds such a hand and try 4H when previously one had severely downgraded the hand due to poor honour location. 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 Aug 6 03:49:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75HnSJ15554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:49:28 +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 f75HnGt15546 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f75Hk9j05167 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:46:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde 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: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > > Just treat both sides as non-offending and give EW > > +420 (4H=) and NS -170 (3H+1) - WTP. > > Somewhat major. You can't do this. Either NS have offended (by > misexplaining 3C) or they have not (in my view, they have, for South's > explanation of 3C is obviously rubbish). There is no doubt that the first explanation of 3C was incomplete and that MI exists (I accepted the fuller explanation as true, perhaps wrongly). However, had TD error not occurred (and West been given a chance to change his bid) there would, IMO, have been no damage and one of two things would have happened. a) West takes the opportunity to bid 4H b) West sticks with his choice of 3H I considered both events reasonably likely. By making a wrong ruling the TD deprived the OS of a chance to get out for -170 and so that is the score they get. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 03:53:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75HrYa15576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:53:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75HrRt15572 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 03:53:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-27.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.27]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f75EUoj00336 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 16:30:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6D2883.BDBC4023@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 13:05:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <024e01c11cbd$9d1ffb00$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Thomas, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then > > I'll rule against him. > > > > Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't > > thought of. I allow him to tell me. > > I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I > > need a "could have known" somewhere. > > "If it hesitates shoot it" > You should realize that I am certainly not of that disposition. I am trying hard to fit this into the laws. You must agree that South should not get away with this. At least if we presume that South did something. Thinking for the sole purpose of silencing partner is not on, surely. Now we may not be sufficiently certain that this South was up to something, but I am ruling the case where we judge that he did (or could be). I think that what is wrong is that you are taking a step too far away from the case. You are comparing it with a case wher South hesitates because he has a genuine problem. Then if North bids, he will be ruled against. So you are saying that North is damned whatever, and so you are describing this as "hesitate - shoot". But that is not at all the case. In the current case, we will not be asked to rule if North does bid - because he will get a worse score than if he passes, so there is no damage. Besides, we are not ruling against North, he did his duty under L16 (or though he was). We are ruling against South. And we do not shoot him for hesitating, only for trying to silence partner with the specific hand he has. With any other hand, he is allowed to think for 5 minutes, we shall not shoot him. But with this hand, yes we do. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 05:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75Ja5U16321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:36:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f75JZXt16307 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:35:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-41-132.frankfurt.gigabell.net [194.29.41.132] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f75JWX209570 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:32:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <010001c11de5$ec2134c0$84291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <024e01c11cbd$9d1ffb00$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> <3B6D2883.BDBC4023@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 21:27:34 +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 "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Hello Thomas, > > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > "Herman De Wael" wrote: > > > I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then > > > I'll rule against him. > > > > > > Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't > > > thought of. I allow him to tell me. > > > I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I > > > need a "could have known" somewhere. > > > > "If it hesitates shoot it" > > > > You should realize that I am certainly not of that > disposition. > > I am trying hard to fit this into the laws. > > You must agree that South should not get away with this. At > least if we presume that South did something. Thinking for > the sole purpose of silencing partner is not on, surely. > Now we may not be sufficiently certain that this South was > up to something, but I am ruling the case where we judge > that he did (or could be). > > I think that what is wrong is that you are taking a step too > far away from the case. You are comparing it with a case > wher South hesitates because he has a genuine problem. Then > if North bids, he will be ruled against. So you are saying > that North is damned whatever, and so you are describing > this as "hesitate - shoot". What you have said is that if S hesitates with a good holding in their suit, you will rule against them whenever N makes a lucky selection among LAs. If N passes and it works out, you will rule against S, and if N does not pass and it works out, you will rule against N because the hesitation suggested bidding. This is just sophisticated "if it hesitates, shoot it". I wonder how you would rule if S hesitates with that hand, and North then reopens with 3D, leading to N/S making 4H. Will you fine them double time, then? You need to ask S why he hesitated. I would assume that he hesitated because he did not know how to bid his hand. Players do only very infrequently have a good hand with a good six card suit in the suit in which RHO preempts. This is a genuine unfamiliar bridge problem. Just give the hand to a few non-expert players of your choice, and notice how many of them will not bid within 10 seconds or so. 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 Aug 6 05:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75Ja4n16320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:36:04 +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 f75JZat16309 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 05:35:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA14104 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA23075 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108051932.PAA23075@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 > From: Herman De Wael > L73D2 is not of application Oh? Why not? Surely you are not reading the heading, are you Herman? We all know it isn't part of the law. The question before us is not whether the hesitation was inadvertent (as the header says), it is whether South has been "particularly careful," as the text says. > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > minute to pass ? Of course we can stop it. First of all, do we all agree that _if_ South has a genuine bridge problem that deserves a full minute of thought, there is no infraction? And even if NS then get a good board because North follows L73C, the score stands? So our current debate about what to do is entirely based on the belief that South does not have such a bridge problem. Are we agreed so far? If not, why. (I know Tim and perhaps others differ in their bridge judgment and think there was a valid bridge reason for the pause. Would you want to rule against South even on some different hand where you agreed with Tim's bridge judgment?) > From: "David Burn" > No. I am of the opinion that there is a flaw in the way in which we > administer the Laws, for we are invariably unwilling to say: "This pair > has cheated". Instead, we try to say: "This pair is of course entirely > honest, but because they have done what a pair of cheats would have > done, we are going to rule against them". The difficulty here is that we > cannot - for once - hide behind this form of sophistry. Sophistry or not, there is no problem hiding behind it. We have already agreed that if South says he was thinking about Wendy, we adjust under 73D1+72B1. Thinking about an imaginary bridge problem -- one not deserving the time South took, even though having some relation to bridge -- is exactly equivalent: South has failed to be particularly careful. Thus we have agreed that there is at least one route to adjustment without calling South a cheat. Just ask 1) did South have a genuine bridge problem, and 2) could South have known a pause would work to his advantage? If the answers are no and yes, then adjust. This is effective but very far from "if it hesitates, shoot it." If we think South might be a cheat, we in North America have the recorder system. I doubt it is 100% effective, but it's better than nothing. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 09:05:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f75N55H00414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:05:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f75N4xt00410 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:05:00 +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 JAA14123 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:08:49 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:51:44 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: "bridge-laws::.gov.au":"rgb.anu.edu.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:57:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/08/2001 08:55:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: [snip] >The Flight A player said that he knew there was no play >unless there was a mistake and he deliberately played low >to the "8" to see if he could goad a mistake from an >opponent although he did make sure to say eight and not >ace. He explicitly avoided any type of "s" sound in >announcing the card, but he knew that with the noise >level in the room that it could be mis-interpreted. > >So, do you think the director should have awarded the >trick the other way? Do you think it was wrong of the >Flight A player to try this "coup" of his? > >Just curious what others think about it. > > -Ted. In a pre-1987 spade grand slam, declarer had an eleven card trump fit missing only K and x (with the trump ace in dummy). LHO led a club, dummy played the ace of clubs. At trick two declarer led a low trump from hand. LHO, who held both Kx of trumps objected, requesting (under the pre-1987 rules) that declarer must lead the first round of trumps from dummy. Unfortunately, LHO had not been paying attention - the black card declarer had played on dummy's ace of clubs had been a trump! Thanks to LHO's objection, declarer now knew to finesse rather than play for the drop. 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 Aug 6 10:38:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f760cCd00534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:38:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f760c6t00530 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:38:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f760Z0K98691 for ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 20:35:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010805194353.00b309e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 20:36:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? In-Reply-To: <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:40 AM 8/3/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >Of course not. We congratulate North for his adherence to > > >L16. Then we castize South for breX-Mozilla-Status: 0009erman DE WAEL > > >Antwerpen Belgium > > > > True in theory, but silly in practice. We know that whatever South > > tells us, it will boil down to, "I had a problem and was trying to > > decide what to bid." This is almost certainly the truth, and, even if > > it isn't, South will certainly say this anyhow. Sure, if South says "I > > had a problem, but I knew what I was going to bid; I only huddled so > > partner would know I had a problem" then we should penalize him for > > violating L73B. But do we really think this will ever happen? In real > > life, there won't ever be any "next". If we create one in this > > situation and remain consistent in other situations, we will wind up > > finding a violation of L73B every time someone huddles. > >Well Eric, we both know that, > >I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then >I'll rule against him. > >Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't >thought of. I allow him to tell me. >I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I >need a "could have known" somewhere. > >Does that exist ? Sure it does; that's the problem. But any time anybody does anything that works to his advantage, they "could have known" that it would. If we take the strictest interpretation of the phrase, we will find a violation in every situation in which anything even slightly out of the ordinary has occurred to the advantage of its perpetrator. If we say that South in the thread situation "could have known" that the huddle could work to his advantage, we will find ourselves, if we're consistent, ruling against any successful action taken after partner breaks tempo. (There are fringe exceptions, like situations where we can find no logical alternative to a UI-suggested bid, but "any" comes close enough.) So we have to read the phrase "could have known" in a somewhat narrower sense, with which we can test whether some line has been crossed, lest we wind up finding the line crossed in every suspected case. I have argued before that the historical context of the Laws strongly suggests that those "could have known"s, along with most of those other "could have"s and "might have"s, were the result of a translation into "lawyer French". Older wording essentially said that you could penalize players for pulling fast ones, and in older times directors and committees routinely did so in situations that had an obvious bad odor about them. Today we properly recognize, though, that sharp practice is cheating, that cheating is a serious offense (even one that can mean a significant loss of income for a growing number), and that you can't accuse folks of cheating without some pretty hard evidence to back you up, lest you be subjected to a lawsuit. This has forced us to reword the law so we need only say that someone "could have" or "might have" done whatever, without risking the consequences of saying on the record that they "did". The intent, I believe, is to allow us to continue to rule against players when we have some real reason to believe that they did whatever they did with some conscious intent or expectation of gaining from it, not in any situation in which there is some scenario in which they might gain which subsequently comes to pass. In the thread case, South's expectation when he huddles is that he will be placed at a disadvantage by subjecting his partner to the restrictions of L16A. Those restriction, as Herman has noted, were met. What happened subsequently could, by definition, have been forseen by South, but was not sufficiently likely to have been expected, nor do we have any reason to believe that South thought that it was. I don't believe that North-South did anything wrong on this deal, and hence decline to join in the hunt for a law under which we can rule against them. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 15:50:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f765nos26973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:49:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f765njt26969 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:49:46 +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 PAA13552 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:53:50 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 15:36:44 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Bridge? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:41:57 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/08/2001 03:40:40 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I heard this story second-hand some time after the event, so I may have some details wrong. Player A made a call out of tempo, Opponent X called, and Player B considered what LAs remained lawfully open to him under L16A. Unfortunately for Player B, deciding what was and was not lawful meant that Player B's call was also out of tempo. Opponent Y assumed a different reason for Player B's break in tempo, and therefore Opponent Y chose an unsuccessful call. The TD and AC ruled that Player B had *no demonstrable bridge reason* for breaking tempo, under L73F2, and therefore adjusted the score. Questions: Is thinking about L16A thinking reasonably about bridge? Or are *demonstrable bridge reasons* restricted to reasoning merely about such concepts as hand evaluation and bidding systems? 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 Aug 6 16:13:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f766D8u26994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:13:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f766D1t26990 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:13:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-158.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.158]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f7669r018665 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:09:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6D8141.66F9617C@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 19:24:17 +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] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <001301c11da3$cbf6abe0$962a7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David brings som good arguments to this case. David Burn wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > L73B2 is too harsh - we don't need to prove cheating in > > order to rule, I hope > > Yes, you do. > OK, I agree with that. Except for one thing : some players, quite by chance, will discover this tactic without knowing it is cheating. They would in all honesty admit to it. North might not even be aware that he is acting on reeverse hesitation, and we still need to have a rule that does not say : "throw them out". And then of course you do have those that know it is not allowed, yet do it all the same, finding some obscure reason why they needed to think for 1 minute. For those, we really need a "could have known". > > so all we're left with is L73B1 > > > South is not allowed to pass the information "I would like > > to see you pass" to North. I believe he has done so. > > Then you must believe that North-South are actually playing "reverse > hesitations". The default meaning of a slow action is "I would like to > see you not pass". Suppose North had *doubled* - what would your ruling > be then? That he had done what South wanted him to do, presumably, > acting on (unauthorised) information received. As Eric says, you can't > hang a man for passing and also hang him for not passing on the same > hand and in the same circumstances. > That is true, but now you are going into the details of the case. I am not confident about the really good actions on the hands, but the information South tries to give to North might be translated as "I don't want you to take this out, partner" South might even not like North to be doubling, since West might remove that. So what you are saying above does not really seem true to me. I would feel less compelled, had North doubled, that this is what the RH suggested. And certainly, if North had bid, we would not be talking about the case. East/West would certainly have protected their rights, North would admit that he had noticed the hesitation but felt there was no LA, and after the hand, East/West would be glad to have escaped. So we are not in fact punishing the hesitation, whatever North does. > > North > > has received this information, and although he does not know > > he has received it, he does indeed pass. > > I don't think it makes sense to say that someone has received > information, but does not know that he has received it. Suppose I tell > you that my birthday is in July, but you don't hear me. Are you better > informed? > But North did receive some information : the UI that induced him to bend over backwards. South intended this, and North acted upon it. If you tell me your birthday is in July, but not the actual date, and I now wish you a belated happy birthday, did you not in fact get what you intended, even by giving incomplete information ? > > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > > minute to pass ? > > Yes. Either you assert, when ruling, that South did what he did on > purpose, and North did what he did knowing what South's action meant. In > this case you use 73B2. Or, you do not so assert, in which case there is > no infraction. > Well, about South's purpose, we can discuss, but I don't believe it serves our purpose here. But North did know exactly what South's message meant : "please bend over backwards in not bidding on". And he did. > > Are you of the opinion David, that we have discovered a flaw > > in the laws? > > No. I am of the opinion that there is a flaw in the way in which we > administer the Laws, for we are invariably unwilling to say: "This pair > has cheated". Instead, we try to say: "This pair is of course entirely > honest, but because they have done what a pair of cheats would have > done, we are going to rule against them". The difficulty here is that we > cannot - for once - hide behind this form of sophistry. > I don't see why not. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 16:17:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f766HDa27006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:17:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f766H8t27002 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:17:08 +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 QAA16767 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:21:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 16:04:07 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Australian National Championships Appeal 3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:09:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/08/2001 04:08:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >Rather, Nich Hughes should tell TD's and AC's to get their >act together, and not impose different standards for >penalizing, just because there is an appeal. If the AC >determines that this is heavy enough to penalize, they >should ask the TD to penalize harsher in future, and allow >him to decide whether or not the tournament is served best >by penalizing this particular instance - if he did not >penalize other similar instances, this one should not be >penalized either. I agree. The WBF Code of Practice states that ACs should think carefully before reversing a TD's ruling - perhaps it should be emphasised in the next edition of the Code that that includes ACs not frivolously reversing a TD's decision to eschew application of a PP. 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 Aug 6 17:01:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f766xaN03452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:59:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f766xTt03448 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:59:30 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA31287; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:56:23 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Aug 06 08:54:51 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 <01K6T3I25Z8I000HYS@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:56:04 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:56:18 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:56:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8E4@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 > > Ton wrote: > > [DWS] > > 1 Which is your country? > > 2 Are your Appeals Committees allowed to use L12C3 in top national > competitions? > > YES / NO > > [TK] > > > Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better be 'yes', > otherwise your > NBO is > > infringing the laws. > > I had not known that Yes was a country, albeit one with a particularly > lawless NBO. OK,OK you are close to being right this time, but still not completely accurate. If the answer on 'Which is your country?'is yes, my guess is that the name of the country is 'Which'. 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 Aug 6 17:02:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7671oP03475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7671gt03466 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-252.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.252] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TeLR-000Ewy-00; Mon, 06 Aug 2001 07:58:34 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c11e45$78380b00$fc4a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be><4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1><4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010805194353.00b309e0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:59:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? > At 06:40 AM 8/3/01, Herman wrote: > > >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > Today we properly recognize, though, that > sharp practice is cheating, that cheating is > a serious offense (even one that can mean > a significant loss of income for a growing > number), and that you can't accuse folks > of cheating without some pretty hard evidence > to back you up, lest you be subjected to a > lawsuit. This has forced us to reword the law > so we need only say that someone "could have" > or "might have" done whatever, without risking > the consequences of saying on the record that > they "did". The intent, I believe, is to allow us > to continue to rule against players when we > have some real reason to believe that they did > whatever they did with some conscious intent > or expectation of gaining from it, not in any > situation in which there is some scenario in > which they might gain which subsequently > comes to pass. > +=+ The history of this piece of law is that the late Roy Higson, former CTD of the English Bridge Union, raised the problem with me, and urged that a way be found to avoid incursion to our country of what was considered a US trend of throwing writs around in bridge circles. I took it up with Edgar and we devised wording together. Our intention was almost exactly as you say, except that we wished Directors never to think in terms of 'cheating'. The hurdle was to be substantially lower - 'this is an instance where your opponent is entitled to be protected', and not 'some reason' but 'in my opinion', not essentially 'conscious' but could be subliminal. ~ 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 Aug 6 17:02:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76721503490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7671jt03469 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-114-233.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.114.233] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TQzj-000C0v-00; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 17:43:15 +0100 Message-ID: <00f601c11dcd$fb43a4a0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> <002301c11db0$bc1dbe40$8d937ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:44:22 +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: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 2:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > Ton wrote: > > [DWS] > > 1 Which is your country? > > 2 Are your Appeals Committees allowed > to use L12C3 in top national competitions? > > YES / NO > > [TK] > > > Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 > better be 'yes', otherwise your > NBO is infringing the laws. > > I had not known that Yes was a country, albeit > one with a particularly lawless NBO. The only > three-letter nation to have participated in > international competitions until now has been > Bye, whose performances, though modest, > have at least been consistent. Presumably Yes > has been barred from taking its place on the > international stage due to the failure of its > officials to conform with L12C3. Let us hope > that this deplorable state of affairs is swiftly > remedied. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Oh, David! ... and I refrained! ~ 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 Mon Aug 6 17:02:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672C003506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7671mt03472 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-66-81.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.66.81] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TQup-000Ato-00; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 17:38:12 +0100 Message-ID: <00f001c11dcd$465a2aa0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:37:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better > be 'yes', otherwise your NBO is infringing the > laws. The EBL did not forbid AC to use 12C3. > A better question could be: Is there an (silent) > agreement in your NBO not to use 12C3? > Or: are AC aware of the possibility to use > 12C3? > > ton > > > 1)Netherlands 2)yes 3)yes 4)yes > 5) no, not yet 6) -- > +=+ I would only add this thought: the desire of the WBF is that NBOs should follow its leadership in their approach to the laws and to appeals matters. The EBL has urged its member NBOs to do so. I think the answer to (5) above is sensible for the time being: Director's using 12C3 should have acquired know-how in handling it. It may be that Directors should be authorized to use it by their NBOs when they have attained to a more-than-basic level certification, and that it should only be delegated to the Director in competitions where the Director in charge has reached a given level of certified expertise. ~ 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 Aug 6 17:02:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672La03512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7671pt03477 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-66-81.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.66.81] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TQun-000Ato-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 17:38:10 +0100 Message-ID: <00ef01c11dcd$453cd3c0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:36:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde > Tim wrote: > > > > Since it is impossible to say what would > > > have happened > >DB> > While all this was going on, the TD cocked > up a ruling. But he did not do so in such a > way that "no rectification will allow the board to > be played normally"; play was allowed to > continue (normally), and then EW were (normally) > allowed to make their case regarding > misinformation to the TD and the AC. The TD > was obviously out of it, so I don't really care what > he decided. If the AC was convinced (a) that > misinformation had occurred and (b) that West > had been damaged thereby, then they would > have ruled 4H making; if not, they would have > ruled 3H+1; if they wanted to award a weighted > score, this was within their purview. Again, what > they did is of little interest to me, provided that > it was one of the above. But there is no case for > an adjustment as provided in L82C. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Oh dear..... I agree .... again. ~ 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 Mon Aug 6 17:02:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672NM03513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7671st03482 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-66-81.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.66.81] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TQum-000Ato-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 17:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: <00ee01c11dcd$4428a4a0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <001301c11da3$cbf6abe0$962a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 17:29:26 +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: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? > As Eric says, you can't hang a man for passing > and also hang him for not passing on the same > hand and in the same circumstances. > +=+ Hmmm...... So I might have said, but is it perhaps open to question? I have been worried at times because this was exactly what I feared was happening in an AC. I had anxieties about one case in Tenerife, fearing the private deliberations of the AC had been too brief to resolve altogether what action, if any, was suggested over another, amongst logical alternatives, by the UI in the case. But there is a question whether the partner whose action is challenged has been influenced by what (s)he felt was the case, even if the committee might doubt it, after all Law 16A2 does say 'could have' been suggested and it is perhaps germane for the committee to consider whether this is not to be read as 'could have been suggested to the player involved'. It does appear from the wording of Law 16A2 that the test to apply must be framed negatively: are we able to say that the action "could not have been suggested over a logical alternative by the unauthorized information?" 'Over' signifies that the LA is less suggested. As framed in the CoP the question put is "Could the unauthorized information be thought to suggest demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who possessed it?". The word 'demonstrably' is present in the law. The words 'could have' express similar force in L16 as in L72B1, I would think. The other point to consider is that Law 73C refers to the motivation of the player who has UI 'available to him' - whether he knows what it is or not. Such a player is required not to do what he thinks it might suggest if he has a logical alternative. It is open for a player to defend himself along the lines of " I thought it might suggest A so what I did was B ". A test of credibility is then called for. ~ 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 Aug 6 17:02:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672QB03514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7671vt03486 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.92] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TN44-000D4X-00; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 13:31:29 +0100 Message-ID: <007501c11daa$cef6a140$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Thomas Dehn" , References: <200107300037.UAA13571@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a201c118e4$155b4e40$8b3d1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 20 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:26:55 +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 5.00.2615.200 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 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 20 > > 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 > +=+ The regulations say two things: (a) a pair using a HUM system may not change its opening calls. (b) after ntoification of opponents' defence to their system a HUM pair may devise a counter-defence, but in doing so may not change any of the highly artificial aspects of the HUM system. In other respects they are subject to the regulations generally governing system changes. ~ 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 Aug 6 17:03:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672U403515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7671wt03489 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:01:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-250.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.250]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D53E5420E for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:58:44 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 07:53:36 +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: <200108051932.PAA23075@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Three observations on this long running post ... (1) I gave the North hand to a director friend who said almost immediately "I bid 3D. I have no idea what my expert partner has spent one minute thinking about. I can only assume he has a club holding which suggests a double or pass from me." If you accept this reasoning, then after a pass from North, however well intentioned, you can adjust under L16. (2) Returning to the South hand then, assuming a double is not available by their methods, there is no sensible alternative to passing. IMO, no experienced player, let alone an expert, should need more than a few seconds to reach this conclusion. A one minute tank here is inexcusable and a clear breach of L73D1 ( ... players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.) I have no difficulty at all in believing he 'could have known' and awarding an adjusted score under L72B1. (3) Certainly I would ask South what on earth he was thinking about. If he was convincing enough, he might avoid a PP! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 17:03:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672aK03518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 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 f76720t03492 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.92] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TN3w-000D4X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 13:31:20 +0100 Message-ID: <007101c11daa$c9b1c0c0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20010803211616.4E56C38A@poczta.interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 09:53:41 +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: Friday, August 03, 2001 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto > > The question is if we can use L73F2 to adjust. > I think we can > +=+ Certainly. Also Marv could have called the Director before he played, to complain of a breach of Law 74B3. (But Marv is not a novice in these matters, and I think he knows when a card is played.) The inclusion of the proprieties as laws was intended to increase the Director's powers in relation to them; he can penalize if he thinks fit - but I think, even if the fault were agreed, and even if he did apply a PP, he could be expected not to change the score, leaving Marv to appeal to the AC. ~ 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 Aug 6 17:03:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672cW03519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76723t03499 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.92] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TN3x-000D4X-00; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 13:31:22 +0100 Message-ID: <007201c11daa$caad85e0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003101c11bfb$8aacb480$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> <3B6A8AAE.91A19709@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 12:50:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde > David Burn wrote: > > > > > > Well, this is a knockout event. So, the side > > that changed its call gets -3 IMPs (L25B). The > > other side gets -3 IMPs as well, because that > > is what it lost on the board. We average these > > scores per L86B, and arrive at a flat board (the > > OS is -3 IMPs at one table, +3 IMPs at the > > other). > > > > At least, that is what the Laws appear to me to > > say that we do. But here is a curious situation - > > the thinking behind L25B was, as I understand > > it, that the OS should accept -3 IMPs rather > > than have to play in a ridiculous contract and > > lose a huge swing. Suppose, though, that the > > contract at the other table was a part score, so > > that 3NT+3 would actually gain 11 IMPs for the > > OS. If we average -3 at one table and +11 at the > > other table, we conclude that the OS actually > > gains 4 IMPs on the board. Is this what is > > supposed to happen? > > > > yes, why not ? > > The team score is arrived at by adding the pair > scores. > +=+ I can't say I recall any thoughts about it, but I do note that Law 25B refers to 'side' not to 'contestant' so the score on the other table seems not to be limited. I would wish to think whether the score on the affected table is not balanced to 0 rather than entered on the players' score cards as -3. That could alter the swing to 5.5 IMPs. ~ 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 Aug 6 17:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7672fo03524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76726t03503 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 17:02:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-83-92.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.83.92] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15TN42-000D4X-00; Sun, 05 Aug 2001 13:31:27 +0100 Message-ID: <007401c11daa$cd86e4a0$5c53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , References: <003101c11bfb$8aacb480$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> <3B6A7429.1010605@interia.pl> <009701c11c11$e6948780$8c3c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: [BLML] Non-balancing VP scores in round robins {was Law 25B in Skvde] Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 13:03:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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, August 03, 2001 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde > Konrad wrote: > > > The problem you mentioned has always bothered me; > > it is a problem of KO events only (in round robin the > > final score will be 21:7VP for instance so there is no > > problem). > > I am not particularly happy with this. I don't think that > in a VP event, teams should ever play for less than (or > more than) the maximum number of VPs available to > other teams because of some infraction or other error. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Your view is shared by a number of (other) personalities of substance, including for example Bobby Wolff at least in respect of 'not more than'. But do not blame the Laws for the situation. Victory Points methods of scoring are 'special methods of scoring' under regulations authorized by Law 78D. If no other provision is made in the regulations the laws provide that the scores need not balance, but since it has been established that Law 80F does not apply to regulations established under other sections of the Laws (Zones have used this widely), there is no reason, in my opinion, why regulation should not provide differently. For example, the regulations may provide for the result of the match to balance to 30 VP, so that in the case of 21-7 the score could be entered perhaps as 22.5 - 7.5, or with greater sophistication they could be balanced from 16 - 2 to 17.78 - 2.22 and five added to each side to give 22.78 - 7.22. Penalties in VPs are deducted from the cumulative score of the contestant, not from the match score. Some member of the EBU Tournament Cttee could raise it with that body, whilst the WBF/EBL Rules and Regulations Committees could consider the thought also. (I have copied this elsewhere with this in mind*.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ { * Carol and Christina please forward for committee perusal, WBF and EBL respectively; Anna has this for information.} -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 18:03:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7683HL03613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:03:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7683At03609 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id C59632A4777; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:58:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from poczta.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.40]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 8EA3B2A44D7 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:58:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id A3FEE38E for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:59:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B6E4D94.2080802@interia.pl> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 09:56:04 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> <002301c11db0$bc1dbe40$8d937ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: 56bd8acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > The only three-letter nation to have participated in > international competitions until now has been Bye, In the last match in Maastricht England was defeated by a nation which name escapes me for the moment, but I have always found these three-letter names hard to remember. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dziewczyny Poznan Motor Show 2001: http://motoryzacja.interia.pl/id/kw/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 Mon Aug 6 19:24:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f769NiI03726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:23:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f769Nct03722 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:23:39 +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, 6 Aug 2001 11:21:52 +0200 Message-ID: <03b701c11e59$501ec140$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Bridge? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:22:24 +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 f769Nft03723 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Bridge? > > I heard this story second-hand some time after > the event, so I may have some details wrong. > > Player A made a call out of tempo, Opponent X > called, and Player B considered what LAs > remained lawfully open to him under L16A. > > Unfortunately for Player B, deciding what was > and was not lawful meant that Player B's call > was also out of tempo. Opponent Y assumed a > different reason for Player B's break in > tempo, and therefore Opponent Y chose an > unsuccessful call. > > The TD and AC ruled that Player B had *no > demonstrable bridge reason* for breaking > tempo, under L73F2, and therefore adjusted > the score. > > Questions: Is thinking about L16A thinking > reasonably about bridge? Or are > *demonstrable bridge reasons* restricted to > reasoning merely about such concepts as hand > evaluation and bidding systems? > Thinking about L16A is most definitely a bridge reason for a break in tempo. > Best wishes > > Richard > 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 Aug 6 21:13:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76BCME03913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:12:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76BCGt03909 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 21:12:17 +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; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:10:33 +0200 Message-ID: <03e701c11e68$7e5de7c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Eric Landau" , "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:11:08 +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 f76BCIt03910 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Why is this a sad situation? It is not sad that one may drive a car > without having studied the motor vehicle code, nor that one may pay > one's taxes without having read the entire tax code. > The comparison is perfect. In my opinion, all bridge players know 'how to operate a vehicle'. They know how to accelerate, brake, shift gears, etc. They may even know how to get out of a spin (play a criss-cross squeeze). Many of them spent enormous resources on what type of car they drive (what kind of system they play). Yet, tons of players don't know/follow the most elementary traffic rules. In L25B we are not talking about a difficult law 'that only lawyers can understand'. It is not a tax loophole. It plain simply says that you can change your bid, before partner has called, if you're willing to accept Ave- as your best score. This is about as simple as the American 'turn on red' rule: You are allowed to turn on a red light, if you accept that the other traffic has the right of way. I think that it is reasonable to ask from tournament level players that they know the basics of the rules and follow changes in the rules, just like I think it is reasonable to ask drivers to know the basics about traffic rules. The driver who knows the speed limit is 55 mph and sets his cruise control to it will arrive at his destination before the driver who doesn't know and thinks that it might be 45 mph. Is there anybody out there who thinks that that is unfair? *SNIP* > 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 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 Aug 6 22:07:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76C7AV04991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:07:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f76C73t04961 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:07:04 +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 f76C3uo21928 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@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, 06 Aug 2001 08:06:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... In-Reply-To: <200108032147.f73LlUe16044@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:47 PM 8/3/01, Ted wrote: >The thread "Coffeehouse in Toronto" reminded me on an incident >from last night at our unit game. > >Note: The Washington area unit game is a fairly strong game. >Last night, we had a somewhat small game for our weekly game >with 36 tables in the open game and 12 in the 199er game. We >typically run 55-60 tables each Thursday night. In addition >we have world and multiple national champions that play >regularly there. So, by and large, it is a strong game when >the field is stacked. > >Last night, the field was mixed and we had a decent flight A >player playing with a moderately new partner of good talent >and rapidly increasing experience. They were playing against >a pair of Flight C players. The decent flight A player (we'll >call him John Doe) was in a hopeless game and faced the following >holding in a side suit (dummy on top): > > A8x >9x QJTx > K7xx > >So, declarer lead up to the "8". Because of the noise and >hubbub (last board of the round and the noise from people >changing rounds early, etc) RHO heard "ace" and played low >without realizing that dummy had played the "8". After he >tabled his "x", he said "hey, you played the A" and was >informed by all at the table that he was incorrect and the >"8" was played. > >Now, the director ruled that the player should have made >sure of the card designated, but he had heard "ace" and there >wasn't a question to him. The director also said that since >the "A" was played, the player could have looked at it himself >and awarded the trick to declarer. And declarer made 10 tricks >when there were only 9 to be made. > >Afterwards when we went out, one of the other players in the >discussion group when he heard about this, thought that the >Flight A player was playing fairly by not allowing the Flight >C player to change his play. Discussion ensued. The Flight >A player said that he knew there was no play unless there was >a mistake and he deliberately played low to the "8" to see if >he could goad a mistake from an opponent although he did make >sure to say eight and not ace. He explicitly avoided any type >of "s" sound in announcing the card, but he knew that with the >noise level in the room that it could be mis-interpreted. > >So, do you think the director should have awarded the trick >the other way? Assuming the director didn't have any reason to suspect chicanery, and treated the occurrence as a normal error, I have no problem with the ruling. > Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A >player to try this "coup" of his? It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable. I can't find a specific law addressing it ("The laws are primarily designed not as punishment..."), but if this occurred in a club I was running, I would sit this player down and tell him in no uncertain terms that that is not how we play the game around here, and unless he changes his attitude towards the game right now and convincingly he is no longer welcome at my club. (In the more formal context of the WBL Unit Game, I would refer the matter to my C&E committee, and expect them to do much the same.) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 22:54:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76Cs2A12355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:54:02 +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 f76Crst12320 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 22:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA15980; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:50:07 +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 OAA25159; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:50:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <011301c11e76$e7232960$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <3B6A80EA.8C899982@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:54:16 +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 ----- > Alain needs to learn one thing still on blml. > So Alain, suppose South does not come up with one of the > many explanations you could have for needing one minute to > decide that pass is his best bid (I'd still like to hear one > such explanation, but that is beside the point), do you > really believe that this South should get away with it ? Well, there is certainly one thing that I must still learn to understand. It is that perfect use of the laws by competent directors (including Mr De Wael) could penalize me on the grounds of suspicions of limited ethics. Because, if South were Alex, and North was yours truly, I'm pretty sure South would have taken much more than 10 seconds, than passed, and North would have bent backwards and passed, thinking that 3D is *not* obvious. I therefore feel that either the law or Mr De Wael or the interpretation of the law by Mr De Wael is evil, and hope it is the latter :-] Horresco referens. But of course, we've got screens here in Brussels. No ill feelings. Alain. > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > AG : not really. South had a nightmare of a hand, took a very long time, and > > North, holding a perfectly normal hand for reopening (some said there was no > > LA, although I don't agree) didn't reopen because he had high ethics.It > > turned out right. Thus, the thread runs around three issues : > > 1) was there indeed a reverse hesitation, a cheat ? (we agree there wasn't) > > 2) should we decide against the OS, pretending there could have been a RH ? > > Some say yes, I say no (oh oh oh) because NS would be punished had N > > reopened or not, hardly sustainable. > > North would not be punished had he reopened, because that > would have led to a worse result that they now have - and > South _knew_ this (or could have known). > > > 3) N having an obvious reopening and bent backwards quite a lot, isn't the > > case more suspect ? > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 23:03:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76D3jf14655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:03:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76D3dt14634 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f76D0Wa89257 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:00:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806085739.00a98d60@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, 06 Aug 2001 09:02:45 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? In-Reply-To: <200108051932.PAA23075@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 03:32 PM 8/5/01, willner wrote: >Sophistry or not, there is no problem hiding behind it. We have >already agreed that if South says he was thinking about Wendy, we >adjust under 73D1+72B1. Thinking about an imaginary bridge problem -- >one not deserving the time South took, even though having some relation >to bridge -- is exactly equivalent: South has failed to be particularly >careful. Thus we have agreed that there is at least one route to >adjustment without calling South a cheat. Just ask 1) did South have a >genuine bridge problem, and 2) could South have known a pause would >work to his advantage? If the answers are no and yes, then adjust. >This is effective but very far from "if it hesitates, shoot it." To me, a "geniuine bridge problem" is any bridge situation which is genuinely problematic for the person facing it. TDs and ACs, IMO, should not be in the business of trying to define and apply some kind of universal objective standard as to what constitutes a "problem". We shouldn't phrase question #1 as "did South have a genunine bridge problem?", but rather as "did South genuninely believe he had a bridge problem?", whatever we might think of the merits of his belief. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 23:06:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76D6S715307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 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 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 f76D6Kt15272 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:06:21 +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 PAA17815; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:02:37 +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 PAA03652; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:03:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:06:47 +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: Ed Reppert > So you *are* looking at a current version. I revise my conclusion: > the French NCBO took the liberty of modifying the laws. Not sure > that's kosher . AG : don't worry, I never intended to eat TFLB less than six hours after meat. Ah, well, perhaps I sometimes wished to (BEG). > I wonder what other substantive changes have been introduced by NCBOs > into the Laws - and how the WBF feels about that. :-) AG : assuming they've heard about it ... however, there could be a slightly more reputable explanation : for some stylistic reason, to translate L432b from English as it was was pretty difficult, and the French solved the problem by splitting the alinea in two, thus prompting a change in the footnote to L62 (good editor's work). The morale, anyway, should be that, before calling one another all kinds of names for referring to some strange article of TFLB, one should keep in mind the possibility that we are involved in a dialogue of the deaf, speaking of the same sentence under different reference numbers. 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 Aug 6 23:19:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76DJ4l18037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:19:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76DIwt18033 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:18:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f76DFp150920 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 09:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806091130.00aba100@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, 06 Aug 2001 09:18:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - In-Reply-To: <03e701c11e68$7e5de7c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1> <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@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 07:11 AM 8/6/01, Rik.Terveen wrote: >I think that it is reasonable to ask from tournament level players >that they know the basics of the rules and follow changes in the >rules, just like I think it is reasonable to ask drivers to know the >basics about traffic rules. > >The driver who knows the speed limit is 55 mph and sets his cruise >control to it will arrive at his destination before the driver who >doesn't know and thinks that it might be 45 mph. Is there anybody out >there who thinks that that is unfair? The U.S. courts have established a firm precedent that a driver who knows that the state-wide speed limit is 55 and drives at 55 on a road on which a lower speed limit has not been posted cannot be fined under a local law which makes the speed limit on that particular road something less than 55. The driver is responsible for knowing the basics of the traffic rules, i.e. that the state-wide limit is 55, and that local speed limits must be obeyed, but is not responsible for knowing that there is an unposted variation for a particular road. The basics of the bridge laws, as known and understood by everyone except a few laws mavens, are that if you take an intentional action you're stuck with it. L25B is the functional equivalent of an unposted variation. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 6 23:32:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76DVuh19866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:31:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f76DVmt19836 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:31:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA21451; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:28:05 +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 PAA19795; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:28:35 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <01d401c11e7c$3546e0a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200108032147.f73LlUe16044@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <001501c11d0a$90b760e0$0200000a@davishi> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:32:15 +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 ----- > Perfectly legal. Declarer called for the eight, which Dummy correctly > played. Defender missed both chances to get it right. In a hopeless > contract, it is perfectly legal (and even expected) to try and sneak a trick > through inattentive defenders, provided it is done at normal tempo and > inflection (using legal plays). Defender has hopefully learned an important > lesson in maintaining concentration until the hand is over, even amid the > distraction of the ending of the event. > > Why on earth would a TD even consider a score adjustment in the complete > absence of an infraction? AG : I do agree. There was such a case in the 1st grade TD exams for the Flemish Bridge League several years ago. A similar case is this : Declarer plays, in a smooth tempo, SA (everybody follows), then SK (idem), then CQ (LHO "follows" with his last small spade). LHO has exposed a card, and the revoke may become established. If there was noise in the room, the good reflex would have been to look at the card detached from dummy (in case of discrepancy, see L45D). Regards, A. > > Hirsch > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 00:34:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76EXlQ00234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:33:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76EXet00230 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:33:41 +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; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:31:57 +0200 Message-ID: <051401c11e84$a1272ca0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Eric Landau" , "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com><4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010806091130.00aba100@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:32:32 +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 f76EXit00231 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - > At 07:11 AM 8/6/01, Rik.Terveen wrote: > > >I think that it is reasonable to ask from tournament level players > >that they know the basics of the rules and follow changes in the > >rules, just like I think it is reasonable to ask drivers to know the > >basics about traffic rules. > > > >The driver who knows the speed limit is 55 mph and sets his cruise > >control to it will arrive at his destination before the driver who > >doesn't know and thinks that it might be 45 mph. Is there anybody out > >there who thinks that that is unfair? > > The U.S. courts have established a firm precedent that a driver who > knows that the state-wide speed limit is 55 and drives at 55 on a road > on which a lower speed limit has not been posted cannot be fined under > a local law which makes the speed limit on that particular road > something less than 55. The driver is responsible for knowing the > basics of the traffic rules, i.e. that the state-wide limit is 55, and > that local speed limits must be obeyed, but is not responsible for > knowing that there is an unposted variation for a particular road. > > The basics of the bridge laws, as known and understood by everyone > except a few laws mavens, are that if you take an intentional action > you're stuck with it. L25B is the functional equivalent of an unposted > variation. > Hi Eric! Nice turn, but I don't buy it. (Bridge) Law books are readily available to any player. They cost practically nothing, in any case much less than all the other bridge books that tournament players have on their shelves. The Laws are available on the web. There is no director who would not allow a player to browse through his law book. Law changes are published and explained in the magazines published by the NCBOs. You have to actively skip articles on the Laws to not be familiar with them (which is what a lot of players do). This doesnot at all compare to what you have to do to find out about an unposted variation in the speed limit. You will have to go through the history of traffic regulations for all the counties that you travel through. Those you can't buy anywhere and probably not even the counties' administrations have easy access to them. Can we imagine a competitive baseball player who doesn't know what the 'infield fly rule' is or a hockey player who doesn't know off side? I find it hard. When we're watching basketball on TV and see a player with possession flying over the sideline, we all yell 'Time out' (player and audience!). Yet in the game where you're supposed to use your brains (bridge), we assume that all players are illiterate and can't possibly be smart enough to bare any responsibility for understanding the laws. I am aware of the fact that currently many players don't know the laws. I am not closing my eyes for that. But when it comes to the question 'How should it be?' then I think it is better to change the attitude from "That's OK and let's take out the laws that are not known to every body" to "Let the players have some responsibility for knowing the Laws and include knowledge of the Laws into bridge skills". After all, wouldn't we say that the basketball player who didn't call time was a #%%&%£@£$, not worth to be kept on the team? Greetings from Sweden, 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 Aug 7 00:54:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76EsmT00275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:54:48 +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 f76Esgt00271 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:54:43 +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 KAA02231 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02988 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:51:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108061451.KAA02988@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 > From: Eric Landau > So we have to read the phrase "could have known" in a somewhat narrower > sense, with which we can test whether some line has been crossed, lest > we wind up finding the line crossed in every suspected case. Fair enough. I suggest the line you wish for is right there in plain sight: the word 'likely' in L72B1. Yes, any irregularity at all _might_ work to the player's advantage, but only in special cases is an irregularity _likely_ to do so. I don't agree that we need a "bad odor" or any suspicion of cheating in order to adjust. We just need to follow the explicit words of the law. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 03:19:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HHxe23727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:17:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76HHkt23693 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:17:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.37]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f76HEd002566 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:14:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6E3D0F.8BD03B7E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:45:35 +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] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > S has passed the information that action will probably > be better than non-action, because S has a good hand. > S does indeed have a good hand. > > > North has received this information, > > and altough he does not know > > he has received it, he does indeed pass. > > N did bend over backwards and passed when both > double and 3D are reasonable, too. > This let to a worse result than if he would have doubled. > I don't even believe that, but that's beside the problem. > > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > > minute to pass ? > > Hesitations are not against the law, only using UI > from hesitations is an infraction. If you want to rule > against N/S, you have to demonstrate that S passed the UI > to N that he wanted N to pass rather than bid. > And you don't think that is the case ? ONE MINUTE ? > We have seen such hands in the past: > some bidding 4H [hesitation] double > with a trump stack when they were playing negative > or transferable values doubles, > and partner then passed based on the hesitation. > The case under discussion is not such a hand. > As I said time and again, I don't want to discuss the actual case, just the principle. How would you rule your case above ? -- 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 Aug 7 03:19:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HIn823923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:18:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com ([24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f76HIft23903 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:18:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f76HCRC17709; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:12:29 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-add r.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:12:31 -0400 To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Cc: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:06 PM +0200 8/6/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >The morale, anyway, should be that, before calling one another all kinds of >names for referring to some strange article of TFLB, one should keep in mind >the possibility that we are involved in a dialogue of the deaf, speaking of >the same sentence under different reference numbers. Point taken - although I didn't call anybody names. I simply said that there is no subparagraph (c) in the Law in question in any copy of the laws to which I have access. And there isn't. (If the French laws are on line, I don't know where.) :-) 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/AwUBO27QlL2UW3au93vOEQIvewCfVkuPoD8eCBRuV8D5r3Ril0d2gdUAnjuX H+jGojBO+uHC9ceYVAnB0AoS =haTv -----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 Aug 7 03:19:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HHun23721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:17:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f76HHit23686 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:17:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.37]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f76HEZ002537 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:14:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6E3C5A.ACAEE641@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:42:34 +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] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <024e01c11cbd$9d1ffb00$6d3d1dc2@rabbit> <3B6D2883.BDBC4023@village.uunet.be> <010001c11de5$ec2134c0$84291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > What you have said is that if S hesitates with > a good holding in their suit, you will rule against them > whenever N makes a lucky selection among LAs. > If N passes and it works out, you will rule against S, > and if N does not pass and it works out, you will rule > against N because the hesitation suggested > bidding. This is just sophisticated "if it hesitates, shoot it". > I don't believe that with this S holding, NS can score more if N bids than if N passes. So the situation cannot arise. This South can know that N passing is the best action for their side. By thinking, he has made certain of the best result. If my analysis in this case is wrong, then so is my ruling, but as I've said before, I find the principle more interesting than the actual case. > I wonder how you would rule if S hesitates with that > hand, and North then reopens with 3D, leading to > N/S making 4H. Will you fine them double time, then? > No need to try and extract more out of a bad example. > You need to ask S why he hesitated. I would assume > that he hesitated because he did not know > how to bid his hand. Players do only very infrequently have > a good hand with a good six card suit in the > suit in which RHO preempts. This is a genuine unfamiliar bridge > problem. Just give the hand to a few non-expert > players of your choice, and notice how many > of them will not bid within 10 seconds or so. > As I said before, I am not discussing the example per se. I said I'd ask South for his reasons. I don't think any sane player (this was against some very well known Poles - I doubt if the opponents were LOLs) can convince me that he needs one minute to think about this hand. 10 seconds, yes, one minute, no. -- 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 Aug 7 03:19:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HI4M23745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:18:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76HHot23708 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:17:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.37]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f76HEf002594 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:14:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6E3E32.B9F0794@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:50:26 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010805194353.00b309e0@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: > > it was. I don't believe that North-South did anything wrong on this > deal, and hence decline to join in the hunt for a law under which we > can rule against them. > That is an eminently sensible position. I am not certain either that South did this. I'd want to hear him out. But please try and consider what the ruling would be if you, as a member of the AC, after hearing the player explaining for 15 minutes why he needed to think for one minute at the table, came to the joint conclusion that this South DID in fact know that the hesitation would work to his benefit. Again, I'm not saying that this South did, I only want to know the mechanics of the ruling mechanism if we find that he did. -- 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 Aug 7 03:19:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HI4T23747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:18:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76HHrt23713 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:17:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.37]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f76HEj002618 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:14:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6E3F28.1E1FF429@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 08:54:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <200108051932.PAA23075@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk willner@cfa.harvard.edu wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > L73D2 is not of application > > Oh? Why not? Surely you are not reading the heading, are you Herman? > We all know it isn't part of the law. > 73D2 applies only to deceiving the opponents, not to enlightening partner. > The question before us is not whether the hesitation was inadvertent > (as the header says), it is whether South has been "particularly > careful," as the text says. > > > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > > minute to pass ? > > Of course we can stop it. First of all, do we all agree that _if_ > South has a genuine bridge problem that deserves a full minute of > thought, there is no infraction? And even if NS then get a good board > because North follows L73C, the score stands? So our current debate > about what to do is entirely based on the belief that South does not > have such a bridge problem. > Exactly. I don't see the bridge problem, but I accept that I hear South out to see if he can tell me that there is a problem. I'm even going to be very lenient in that. > Are we agreed so far? If not, why. (I know Tim and perhaps others > differ in their bridge judgment and think there was a valid bridge > reason for the pause. Would you want to rule against South even on some > different hand where you agreed with Tim's bridge judgment?) > We are agreed. > > From: "David Burn" > > No. I am of the opinion that there is a flaw in the way in which we > > administer the Laws, for we are invariably unwilling to say: "This pair > > has cheated". Instead, we try to say: "This pair is of course entirely > > honest, but because they have done what a pair of cheats would have > > done, we are going to rule against them". The difficulty here is that we > > cannot - for once - hide behind this form of sophistry. > > Sophistry or not, there is no problem hiding behind it. We have > already agreed that if South says he was thinking about Wendy, we > adjust under 73D1+72B1. Thinking about an imaginary bridge problem -- > one not deserving the time South took, even though having some relation > to bridge -- is exactly equivalent: South has failed to be particularly > careful. Thus we have agreed that there is at least one route to > adjustment without calling South a cheat. Just ask 1) did South have a > genuine bridge problem, and 2) could South have known a pause would > work to his advantage? If the answers are no and yes, then adjust. > This is effective but very far from "if it hesitates, shoot it." > Why are you in a different camp from me, Steve (or appear to be). This is exactly my point. > If we think South might be a cheat, we in North America have the > recorder system. I doubt it is 100% effective, but it's better than > nothing. -- 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 Aug 7 03:26:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HQ2q25470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:26:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76HPut25457 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:25:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f76HNrE11298 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:23:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003d01c11e9c$5c90a7c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20010803211616.4E56C38A@poczta.interia.pl> <007101c11daa$c9b1c0c0$5c53063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Coffeehouse in Toronto Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:22:00 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > From: Konrad Ciborowski > > > The question is if we can use L73F2 to adjust. > > I think we can > > > +=+ Certainly. Also Marv could have called > the Director before he played, to complain > of a breach of Law 74B3. (But Marv is not > a novice in these matters, and I think he > knows when a card is played.) > The inclusion of the proprieties as laws > was intended to increase the Director's > powers in relation to them; he can penalize > if he thinks fit - but I think, even if the fault > were agreed, and even if he did apply a PP, > he could be expected not to change the > score, leaving Marv to appeal to the AC. I agree wholeheartedly, and had no expectation of redress. My action was taken at my own risk (L73D1), despite what L73F2 says, since I am quite aware of when a card is played. That's not an easy line to draw, however, when the TD has to decide which law applies. What I wanted was for the TD to tell this [...., deleted adjective well-established by the time the TD arrived] that he should not detach a card before it is his turn to play. Since he vehemently denied doing so (to my amazement because it was well out of his hand), the TD could do nothing when he was unable to verify that the irregularity had occurred. 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 Aug 7 03:46:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76Hjqt28815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:45:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76Hjjt28789 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:45:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f76HhgE05690 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004b01c11e9f$21483c20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> <03e701c11e68$7e5de7c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:42:11 -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: "Rik Terveen" > I think that it is reasonable to ask from tournament level players > that they know the basics of the rules and follow changes in the > rules, just like I think it is reasonable to ask drivers to know > the basics about traffic rules. > One step in that direction would be for all new members of bridge organizations to be given a simple booklet summarizing the rules of the game, as the USTA does for American tennis players, and as the California Motor Vehicle Department does for drivers. 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 Aug 7 03:53:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76HqmO29934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76Hqft29913 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 03:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-161-12.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.161.12]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f76HnX020431 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:49:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B6ED602.3302CD6B@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 19:38:10 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <3B6A80EA.8C899982@village.uunet.be> <011301c11e76$e7232960$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Alain needs to learn one thing still on blml. > > > > > So Alain, suppose South does not come up with one of the > > many explanations you could have for needing one minute to > > decide that pass is his best bid (I'd still like to hear one > > such explanation, but that is beside the point), do you > > really believe that this South should get away with it ? > > Well, there is certainly one thing that I must still learn to understand. It > is that perfect use of the laws by competent directors (including Mr De > Wael) could penalize me on the grounds of suspicions of limited ethics. Again, Alain, you are confusing the actual case and the principle. > Because, if South were Alex, and North was yours truly, I'm pretty sure > South would have taken much more than 10 seconds, than passed, And he would have explained to me why he needed 20 seconds, and you would tell me 20 seconds is not very long for Alex, and I would probably be able to be convinced that Alex was not "trying something". Now go back to Toronto, where there are people I don't know, and of whom I shall be asking the same questions as of Alex and you. They may give me similar answers and I will rule alike, or they may give me other answers and I will not be convinced South was not up to something. See what I mean, Alain ? You talk of "much more than 10 seconds" which is a hesitation in legal terms. The original spoke of "about a minute", which is an eternity. I can be convinced in some actual case that there is no need for a ruling. But, in principle, if not in real life, there are situations where we cannot be convinced that there is nothing going on. What law should we then use is what this thread is all about. > and North > would have bent backwards and passed, thinking that 3D is *not* obvious. Of course you would, and there'd be nothing wrong there. > I therefore feel that either the law or Mr De Wael or the interpretation of > the law by Mr De Wael is evil, and hope it is the latter :-] No, it is merely Mr De Wael's bridge judgment in this particular case. Something he's never boasted about in the first place. > Horresco referens. > But of course, we've got screens here in Brussels. > > No ill feelings. > > Alain. > Why should there be ill feelings ? -- 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 Aug 7 04:28:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76IRFs07220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:27:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f76IR5t07180 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:27:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-149.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.149]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 14F1A36B8C; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 20:23:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006901c11ea4$fd2dedc0$95b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:41:10 +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 >Herman wrote: > >> L73B2 is too harsh - we don't need to prove cheating in >> order to rule, I hope > >Yes, you do. No, you don't, unless you refuse to use L16 for it, with not much more as an argument than that we normally don't use it for such an irregularity. ton > >> so all we're left with is L73B1 > >> South is not allowed to pass the information "I would like >> to see you pass" to North. I believe he has done so. > >Then you must believe that North-South are actually playing "reverse >hesitations". The default meaning of a slow action is "I would like to >see you not pass". Suppose North had *doubled* - what would your ruling >be then? That he had done what South wanted him to do, presumably, >acting on (unauthorised) information received. As Eric says, you can't >hang a man for passing and also hang him for not passing on the same >hand and in the same circumstances. > >> North >> has received this information, and although he does not know >> he has received it, he does indeed pass. > >I don't think it makes sense to say that someone has received >information, but does not know that he has received it. Suppose I tell >you that my birthday is in July, but you don't hear me. Are you better >informed? > >> Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we >> cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even >> if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one >> minute to pass ? > >Yes. Either you assert, when ruling, that South did what he did on >purpose, and North did what he did knowing what South's action meant. In >this case you use 73B2. Or, you do not so assert, in which case there is >no infraction. > >> Are you of the opinion David, that we have discovered a flaw >> in the laws? > >No. I am of the opinion that there is a flaw in the way in which we >administer the Laws, for we are invariably unwilling to say: "This pair >has cheated". Instead, we try to say: "This pair is of course entirely >honest, but because they have done what a pair of cheats would have >done, we are going to rule against them". The difficulty here is that we >cannot - for once - hide behind this form of sophistry. > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 04:28:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76IRJG07225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:27:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f76IR9t07201 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:27:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-149.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.149]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6862936D2A; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 20:23:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006a01c11ea5$007ccaa0$95b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Burn" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing VP scores in round robins {was Law 25B in Skvde] Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 19:45:45 +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 >> >> I am not particularly happy with this. I don't think that >> in a VP event, teams should ever play for less than (or >> more than) the maximum number of VPs available to >> other teams because of some infraction or other error. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >+=+ Your view is shared by a number of (other) >personalities of substance, including for example >Bobby Wolff at least in respect of 'not more than'. >But do not blame the Laws for the situation. Victory >Points methods of scoring are 'special methods of >scoring' under regulations authorized by Law 78D. >If no other provision is made in the regulations the >laws provide that the scores need not balance, but >since it has been established that Law 80F does not >apply to regulations established under other sections >of the Laws (Zones have used this widely), there is >no reason, in my opinion, why regulation should not >provide differently. For example, the regulations may >provide for the result of the match to balance to >30 VP, so that in the case of 21-7 the score could be >entered perhaps as 22.5 - 7.5, or with greater >sophistication they could be balanced from 16 - 2 to >17.78 - 2.22 and five added to each side to give >22.78 - 7.22. Penalties in VPs are deducted from >the cumulative score of the contestant, not from >the match score. > Some member of the EBU Tournament Cttee >could raise it with that body, whilst the WBF/EBL >Rules and Regulations Committees could consider >the thought also. (I have copied this elsewhere with >this in mind*.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >{ * Carol and Christina please forward for committee >perusal, WBF and EBL respectively; Anna has this >for information.} I tend to agree with Bobby that not more than 30VP should be given, but could you give me an argument why we shouldn't give less than that? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 04:34:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76IY5D08704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:34:05 +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 f76IXxt08689 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 04:34:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f76IVvE08793 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005e01c11ea5$deb62280$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806085739.00a98d60@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:30:24 -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" > > To me, a "geniuine bridge problem" is any bridge situation > which is genuinely problematic for the person facing it. > TDs and ACs, IMO, should not be in the business of trying > to define and apply some kind of universal objective > standard as to what constitutes a "problem". We shouldn't > phrase question #1 as "did South have a genunine bridge > problem?", but rather as "did South genuninely believe he > had a bridge problem?", whatever we might think of the > merits of his belief. > This is part of an overall principle that should be established either way by the lawmakers. Is "the class of player involved" to be considered in every situation where it might be a factor (L16A, 73F2, etc.), or should the player's ability not be a consideration, since it is generally unknown (and when known, may not be relevant). Some say that the footnotes to L69, L70, and L70 establish the "class of player involved" subjective principle for all the Laws. I think this is unfortunate, as it has been used, for instance, to justify the allowance of a claim if it is judged that the opponent(s) would not find a line of play that they say makes it invalid. To me the footnotes only point out that even good players can do things that are careless or inferior, not that poor players are sure to play badly. There are good arguments either way, but given the fact that TDs and ACs cannot measure players' abilities with any accuracy, and have no reliable way to correlate ability with actions a player might take, I prefer the "objective" principle: The class of player should not be a factor when applying a law that affects bridge results. When conferring on a ruling with other TDs, a TD should not identify the players involved, to assure objectivity. That policy will tend to result in the same ruling for everyone for the same irregularity, more desirable than a vain attempt to tailor rulings according to those involved. Having great respect for Eric's opinions, and great appreciation for his valuable contributions to BLML, which must require a lot of his time, I am sorry to disagree (mildly) with his suggested approach. I think its easier to define an objective standard than to define a standard for every individual. 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 Aug 7 06:33:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76KX0q01370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 06:33:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76KWst01360 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 06:32:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f76KUoE08887 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b401c11eb6$7b547be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com><4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010806091130.00aba100@127.0.0.1> <051401c11e84$a1272ca0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:23:08 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Rik.Terveen wrote: > (Bridge) Law books are readily available to any player. They cost practically nothing, in any case much less than all the other bridge books that tournament players have on their shelves. The Laws are available on the web. There is no director who would not allow a player to browse through his law book. Law changes are published and explained in the magazines published by the NCBOs. You have to actively skip articles on the Laws to not be familiar with them (which is what a lot of players do). Not so "readily available" as they should be. The last time I tried Amazon.com, the only duplicate Laws book they had available was two editions behind the current one ("Limited availablility - out of print"). For rubber bridge, the old 1981 version, also "out of print." Barnes and Noble had only an "out of print" reference to a 1988(?) version of the duplicate Laws, nothing on rubber bridge. I went to every major bookstore in San Diego, and not one had the Laws for sale, either for duplicate or rubber bridge. Someone in the ACBL is not doing their job to promote bridge. They should be giving the paperbacks *free* to distributors in order to promote the game of bridge. I remember that the '97 Laws were out for a year before the ACBL put them on its website. While the Laws are indeed available on the internet, I sincerely doubt that any San Diegan but me has ever looked at them. Certainly not any non-ACBL person. The ACBL version is not easily downloadable (illegal, anyway, they say) because each section is on a different page. Besides, a majority of players hereabouts are not web surfers. The only people with the published books are TDs, who typically have not studied them much. It is rare for someone else to ask for a look. One cannot learn the Laws by reading the articles about changes to them in *The Bridge Bulletin*. As I have said, every ACBL member should be given a small booklet that summarizes the Laws. Not the TD actions, but merely the basic rules of the game for players to follow. Then "ignorance of the law" would not be an excuse. 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 Aug 7 08:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76MCDL16961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:12:13 +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 f76MC7t16957 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:12:07 +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 SAA22666 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA04628 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:09:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108062209.SAA04628@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 > From: Herman De Wael > > > L73D2 is not of application > 73D2 applies only to deceiving the opponents, not to > enlightening partner. Sorry, sorry, sorry: that should have been 73D1. (On a good day, that would have been obvious from my later comments.) This law is most commonly applied to deceiving the opponents, but the text isn't limited to that. > > Of course we can stop it. First of all, do we all agree that _if_ > > South has a genuine bridge problem that deserves a full minute of > > thought, there is no infraction? > Exactly. I don't see the bridge problem, but I accept that > I hear South out to see if he can tell me that there is a > problem. I'm even going to be very lenient in that. OK, good. > Why are you in a different camp from me, Steve (or appear to > be). I don't think I'm in a different camp at all. I'm just pointing out a perfectly good law you can rule under. Was the pause likely to benefit the player? Could he have known that? Was he "particularly careful," as the law requires? If the answers are yes, yes, no, then adjust. Actually, the situation is closely analogous to deceptive hesitations prior to 1997. Now we have a specific law, 73F2, but even before that we had no problem adjusting the score if someone hesitated with a singleton and an opponent was deceived. So even without a specific law now, I claim there's no problem. Perhaps the 2007 Laws should be explicit and contain something like: L73F3: if a player for no demonstrable bridge reason creates a situation where partner's action is constrained by L73C, and the player could have known at the time of creating the situation that it would be likely to work to his advantage, the Director shall award an adjusted score. (I've spend about 90 seconds writing the above so quite likely the phrasing is poor, but I hope the sentiment comes through.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 08:42:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76MgEq17266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:42:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f76Mg9t17253 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:42:09 +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 IAA13532 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:46:12 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 08:29:05 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:34:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/08/2001 08:33:01 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable. I can't >find a specific law addressing it ("The laws are primarily designed not >as punishment..."), but if this occurred in a club I was running, I >would sit this player down and tell him in no uncertain terms that that >is not how we play the game around here, and unless he changes his >attitude towards the game right now and convincingly he is no longer >welcome at my club. (In the more formal context of the WBL Unit Game, >I would refer the matter to my C&E committee, and expect them to do >much the same.) Here at the Lindpaddock Bridge Club we find pre-empts disgusting and despicable. Everytime a nefarious player perpetrates a pre-empt, they are required to complete a Pre-Empt Registration Form, which is sent to our C&E committee. Also, the weak notrump is not how we play the game around here at the Lindpaddock Bridge Club. If a weak notrump is opened more than twice a session, the offender receives an automatic PP. 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 Aug 7 09:51:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f76Noc423360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:50:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f76NoVt23356 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:50:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-169.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.169]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id DFFCB55A6D for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:47:04 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:41:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <007201c11daa$caad85e0$5c53063e@dodona> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Burn wrote: > At least, that is what the Laws appear to me to > say that we do. But here is a curious situation - > the thinking behind L25B was, as I understand > it, that the OS should accept -3 IMPs rather > than have to play in a ridiculous contract and > lose a huge swing. Suppose, though, that the > contract at the other table was a part score, so > that 3NT+3 would actually gain 11 IMPs for the > OS. If we average -3 at one table and +11 at the > other table, we conclude that the OS actually > gains 4 IMPs on the board. Is this what is > supposed to happen? I had assumed here that 'at one table...at the other table' was a slip of the finger. *Results* are obtained at 'tables' but it is *teams* not 'tables' that score up (i.e. convert to IMPs). Surely what will happen here is that the team containing the NO pair will score up and arrive at -11 IMPs for this board. The team containing the offending pair will likewise arrive at +11 IMPs which because of L25B will *then* be adjusted *for that team* to -3 IMPs. If it were a multiple or Swiss teams event then these IMP scores would apply unadjusted. Here, however it is a Knockout event, L86B applies and the scores for this board are adjusted to NO team -4 IMPs, offending team +4 IMPs as DB stated. Incidentally ... dreadful thought. If, on the same board, both pairs of a team were unfortunate enough to make 'a delayed or purposeful bid' under L25B, would their result for this board be restricted to a maximum of -6 IMPs?! >+=+ I can't say I recall any thoughts about it, but >I do note that Law 25B refers to 'side' not to >'contestant' so the score on the other table seems >not to be limited. I would wish to think whether the >score on the affected table is not balanced to 0 >rather than entered on the players' score cards >as -3. That could alter the swing to 5.5 IMPs. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ So I don't follow this at all. Have I missed something? 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 Aug 7 14:02:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7740gJ01469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:00:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net ([207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7740Zt01454 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:00:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauidd.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.173]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA00396 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:57:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001601c11ef5$0a0b0640$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 23:57:09 -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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > At 05:47 PM 8/3/01, Ted wrote: > > > > >Last night, the field was mixed and we had a decent flight A > >player playing with a moderately new partner of good talent > >and rapidly increasing experience. They were playing against > >a pair of Flight C players. The decent flight A player (we'll > >call him John Doe) was in a hopeless game and faced the following > >holding in a side suit (dummy on top): > > > > A8x > >9x QJTx > > K7xx > > > >So, declarer lead up to the "8". Because of the noise and > >hubbub (last board of the round and the noise from people > >changing rounds early, etc) RHO heard "ace" and played low > >without realizing that dummy had played the "8". After he > >tabled his "x", he said "hey, you played the A" and was > >informed by all at the table that he was incorrect and the > >"8" was played. > > > Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A > >player to try this "coup" of his? > > It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable. I can only hope that you misread the original post. As I read it, Declarer made a legal play, presumably in tempo and without undue emphasis. There is nothing disgusting, despicable, or otherwise unkosher about anything. It was a simple attempt to catch an inattentive defender that happened to work. What will we object to next, falsecarding? Or are you suggesting that the declarer was somehow unsportsmanlike in not allowing the defender a "do over" when he realized his mistake? >I can't > find a specific law addressing it ("The laws are primarily designed not > as punishment..."), but if this occurred in a club I was running, I > would sit this player down and tell him in no uncertain terms that that > is not how we play the game around here, and unless he changes his > attitude towards the game right now and convincingly he is no longer > welcome at my club. (In the more formal context of the WBL Unit Game, > I would refer the matter to my C&E committee, and expect them to do > much the same.) > I used to direct at the WBL unit game several years ago. I also served a term on the WBL Board of Directors, and a year on the C&E committee, so I used to know that particular game quite well. I am quite confident that in the absence of any change of tempo and inflection, the DIC and/or the C&E committee would not look sympathetically at any suggestion that declarer's play was somehow improper. I refer you to the following section from the CoP: "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." 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 Aug 7 15:40:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f775dog19389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:39:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0 (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f775dit19367 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:39:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout3-0 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f775ZDW13422; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:35:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b401c11eb6$7b547be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac 89@au.fjanz.com><4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010806091130.00aba100@127.0.0.1> <051401c11e84$a1272ca0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <00b401c11eb6$7b547be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 01:34:08 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:23 PM -0700 8/6/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >Not so "readily available" as they should be. The last time I tried >Amazon.com, the only duplicate Laws book they had available was two >editions behind the current one ("Limited availablility - out of >print"). For rubber bridge, the old 1981 version, also "out of >print." Barnes and Noble had only an "out of print" reference to a >1988(?) version of the duplicate Laws, nothing on rubber bridge. Both the duplicate and the rubber laws (current versions) are available via the web or an 800 number from both the ACBL and Baron Barclay. 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/AwUBO29+YL2UW3au93vOEQKy/QCfTOynEVzd5W3/UoZLC5hOOvFNnQIAoOxA KQA5Wvmjpki0Dr3gv2yUtf2k =Mpy+ -----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 Aug 7 16:36:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f776ZB122027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:35:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f776Ywt22018 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:34:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-38-61.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.38.61] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15U0P7-000HPw-00; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:31:50 +0100 Message-ID: <005201c11f0a$e69457a0$3d267bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "David Burn" , "Ton Kooijman" References: <006a01c11ea5$007ccaa0$95b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing VP scores in round robins {was Law 25B in Skvde] Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:32:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; David Burn ; Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing VP scores in round robins {was Law 25B in Skvde] > > > I tend to agree with Bobby that not more than > 30VP should be given, but could you give me an > argument why we shouldn't give less than that? > > ton > +=+ Since I have not argued personally for any change in the basic position in the laws, that scores need not balance in round robins, I do not think I am the one to respond to your question. What I have done is to invite the several authorities to consider (if they wish) a possible provision in regulations governing the award of VPs, given the opinions that some players hold. If I were to express a personal view, it would be that the primary consideration should be to treat both sides in a match fairly, not varying for either of them a result to which it is entitled. The principle underlying Law 92A ('at his table') intends to deny other contestants than those directly involved any legitimate interest in the outcome of rulings; I think this also holds good in the case of non-balancing scores. Although more than 30 VPs may be awarded between the two teams, considered individually the score of each team has its proper relationship with the scores of other contestants where scoring is across the field. (In knockout situations the 'field' comprises only two contestants and the question is how to maintain the relationship between their scores. As today's reply to another email indicates I have reservations about what has been said on this aspect.) ~ 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 Aug 7 16:36:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f776Z1P22019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f776Yrt22011 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-38-61.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.38.61] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15U0P2-000HPw-00; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:31:44 +0100 Message-ID: <005001c11f0a$e3132020$3d267bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1><011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> <03e701c11e68$7e5de7c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004b01c11e9f$21483c20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 06:17:14 +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: BLML Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - > > From: "Rik Terveen" > > > I think that it is reasonable to ask from > > tournament level players that they know > > the basics of the rules and follow changes > > in the rules, just like I think it is reasonable > > to ask drivers to know the basics about > > traffic rules. > > > One step in that direction would be for all > new members of bridge organizations to be > given a simple booklet summarizing the rules > of the game, as the USTA does for American > tennis players, and as the California Motor > Vehicle Department does for drivers. > +=+ The British Highway Code, requisite study for every probationer driver prior to taking a driving test for a full driving licence, seems to have little effect on the quality of driving encountered. But, perhaps, maybe, a future step with the CoP could be to include some basics for players. ~ 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 Aug 7 16:36:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f776Z9Q22026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:35:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f776Ywt22017 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:34:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-38-61.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.38.61] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15U0P3-000HPw-00; Tue, 07 Aug 2001 07:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: <005101c11f0a$e41fae20$3d267bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:24:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 12:41 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25B in Skvde > > >+=+ I can't say I recall any thoughts about it, but > >I do note that Law 25B refers to 'side' not to > >'contestant' so the score on the other table seems > >not to be limited. I would wish to think whether the > >score on the affected table is not balanced to 0 > >rather than entered on the players' score cards > >as -3. That could alter the swing to 5.5 IMPs. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > So I don't follow this at all. Have I missed something? > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > ++=++ Probably not. This piece of the discussion was about knockout situations. 'Side' means a pair at a table; the 25B limitation applies therefore to the score entered at that table. 'Contestant' means, here, the team; balancing under 86B is balancing of the scores between contestants. Do we then look at Team A -3 +11 = +8 Team B +3 -11 = -8 reminding ourselves that +/- 11 on table two is notional, whilst at table one the scores entered are predicated by 25B, and our adjudication is by way of an assigned adjusted score? Nor do I preclude the possibilities of weighted 12C3 scores viewing probabilities that game would/would not be bid on table one. DB was musing on other possibilities, and I could not see that he had balanced the scores of the two contestants. However, I think the results on the board of the two teams must be assessed separately and then 86B applied. ~ 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 Aug 7 17:43:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f777fvZ22078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:41:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f777fpt22074 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA28905 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 07:38:35 GMT Message-ID: <3B6F9AF9.171B4A5@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 09:38:33 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-add r.ARPA> <001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert a écrit : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 3:06 PM +0200 8/6/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >The morale, anyway, should be that, before calling one another all kinds of > >names for referring to some strange article of TFLB, one should keep in mind > >the possibility that we are involved in a dialogue of the deaf, speaking of > >the same sentence under different reference numbers. > > Point taken - although I didn't call anybody names. I simply said > that there is no subparagraph (c) in the Law in question in any copy > of the laws to which I have access. And there isn't. (If the French > laws are on line, I don't know where.) :-) > http://arbiiitre.free.fr/som_code.htm evidently, the french translator intended to correct a frame error in the original law 43 text. jp rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 18:02:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7780WS22101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:00:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7780Mt22093 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f777vFD03614 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:57:15 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:57 +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: <3B6E3C5A.ACAEE641@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > As I said before, I am not discussing the example per se. I > said I'd ask South for his reasons. I don't think any sane > player (this was against some very well known Poles - I > doubt if the opponents were LOLs) can convince me that he > needs one minute to think about this hand. 10 seconds, yes, > one minute, no. If your purposes are nefarious then 15 seconds will work as well as one minute (and I can think of plenty of players who would take 15 seconds). The ethical player who does take 15 seconds then has the problem that he knows partner may now be unable to balance and that creates a whole new set of problems to be thought through. I said previously that if I judged the purpose of the pause actually was deliberately to stop partner bidding (rather than a genuine problem for the player concerned) that I would adjust (and if the player knew such was illegal send to the L&E committee). I still want to do that but I can't actually see which law I would be using. So while Herman and I may disagree on the judgement of the specific case we at least have this difficulty in common. You can't use 73D1 since the hesitation is deliberate You can't use 73D2 since it wasn't designed to mislead opponents You can't use L16 since the hesitation itself is not an offence under this law and the partner took the action we would expect from any ethical player after a slow pass (I have previously suggested we be able to look at hesitator's hand to help us determine what the UI actually suggests but this met with less than widespread endorsement at the time). We seem to be left with 73B1. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. It doesn't quite fit because only one member of the partnership is doing anything wrong (after all this ploy doesn't work if partner is unethical!) but we do need something. 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 Aug 7 18:02:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7780Wu22100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:00:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7780Mt22092 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f777vDU03593 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:57:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:57 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> Eric Landau wrote: > > Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A > >player to try this "coup" of his? > > It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable. I'm interested as to why you feel this way. To me it is the equivalent of discarding "black on black" on the first trump in the hope declarer is not paying full attention. Regarded, round here, as perfectly legitimate as long as the card is not turned over with undue haste (taking care that "eight" is properly pronounced is the equivalent of avoiding such haste). 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 Aug 7 19:12:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f779Aqv22140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:10:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oxera.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-13.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.223]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f779Akt22136 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:10:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by oxera.wanadoo.fr; 7 Aug 2001 11:07:33 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.248.114.52) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 7 Aug 2001 11:07:17 +0200 Message-ID: <003a01c11f20$06a55e80$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA><001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:04:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: Alain Gottcheiner Cc: Ed Reppert ; Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 3:06 PM +0200 8/6/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >The morale, anyway, should be that, before calling one another all kinds of > >names for referring to some strange article of TFLB, one should keep in mind > >the possibility that we are involved in a dialogue of the deaf, speaking of > >the same sentence under different reference numbers. > > Point taken - although I didn't call anybody names. I simply said > that there is no subparagraph (c) in the Law in question in any copy > of the laws to which I have access. And there isn't. (If the French > laws are on line, I don't know where.) :-) And at : http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/reglem/Code97.htm I agree with JP Rocafort, your L43.B.3. should be presented as our L43.B.2.C. It said exactly the same but it's slightly more simple. Mathehatician calls that "distributivity". O. Beauvillain. > > > 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/AwUBO27QlL2UW3au93vOEQIvewCfVkuPoD8eCBRuV8D5r3Ril0d2gdUAnjuX > H+jGojBO+uHC9ceYVAnB0AoS > =haTv > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 19:56:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f779t6k22174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:55:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f779sxt22170 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 19:55:00 +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 LAA06923; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:48:24 +0200 (MEST) 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 LAA10769; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:51:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <009b01c11f27$1544caa0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <3B6A80EA.8C899982@village.uunet.be> <011301c11e76$e7232960$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <3B6ED602.3302CD6B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 11:55:25 +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: Herman De Wael > > > So Alain, suppose South does not come up with one of the > > > many explanations you could have for needing one minute to > > > decide that pass is his best bid (I'd still like to hear one > > > such explanation, but that is beside the point), do you > > > really believe that this South should get away with it ? AG : no, he shouldn't. But I do believe this hesitation had some grounds here. As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised if the winning bid (in average) turned out to be 3NT. This remembers me of a similar case. South/East were regular partners. West was a promising yougnster, regular partner of somebody (call him X) who occasionally partners East. He is known for occasional absentmindedness.. North was a client. East opened 2H, not alerted. South plays transfer preempts with East, and knows East plays them with X, so he had every reason to asssume E/W were, too. His hand corroborated this (4H and 2S). You see, the problem is quite similar to the one we treated. South knew it wouldn't be ethical to ask West about a non-alerted bid. But he thought it was important to North to know about it, and North couldn't be aware of E/W's system. So South decided to wait until West came out of his daydreaming and alerted. Long was he waiting, because the 2H bid was not conventional. Is this a genuine bridge reason ? I doubt it, but surely there was neither intent to deceive, nor to convey information, especially as, becoming tired of waiting, South bid 2NT, which was the normal thing to do over a natural 2H. But assume South decided to pass, how would you rule ? > > Well, there is certainly one thing that I must still learn to understand. It > > is that perfect use of the laws by competent directors (including Mr De > > Wael) could penalize me on the grounds of suspicions of limited ethics. > > Again, Alain, you are confusing the actual case and the > principle. AG :OK, but I stress the fact that the principle is hard to bring into action. By recording 'strange cases' you might have sufficient grounds to do it, however, but this comes under rule 75A. I've never liked to base my rulings on the absence of convincing explanation, because we all know that it's the culprit, not the innocent, who's got the best alibi. > > Because, if South were Alex, and North was yours truly, I'm pretty sure > > South would have taken much more than 10 seconds, than passed, > > And he would have explained to me why he needed 20 seconds, > and you would tell me 20 seconds is not very long for Alex, > and I would probably be able to be convinced that Alex was > not "trying something". AG : by the way, Alex was South in the case I mention, and I was East. > Now go back to Toronto, where there are people I don't know, > and of whom I shall be asking the same questions as of Alex > and you. They may give me similar answers and I will rule > alike, or they may give me other answers and I will not be > convinced South was not up to something. AG : that's fine, at top level at least, where South shouldn't be afraid of the big, bad TD. > > I therefore feel that either the law or Mr De Wael or the interpretation of > > the law by Mr De Wael is evil, and hope it is the latter :-] > > No, it is merely Mr De Wael's bridge judgment in this > particular case. > Something he's never boasted about in the first place. AG : no comment. (which, as we all know, already is a comment) Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 20:09:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77A7YN22191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:07:34 +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 f77A7St22187 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:07:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA09053; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:00:54 +0200 (MEST) 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 MAA18863; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:04:13 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00d801c11f28$d3fb4fe0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:07:55 +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 ----- > I'm interested as to why you feel this way. To me it is the equivalent of discarding "black on black" on the first trump in the hope declarer is not > paying full attention. Regarded, round here, as perfectly legitimate as > long as the card is not turned over with undue haste (taking care that > "eight" is properly pronounced is the equivalent of avoiding such haste). AG : a teammate of mine, and a good TD too, got an opportunity to discard a club on the 1st round of spades. He caught his pigeon - er, his shark : the declarer is considered (at least by himself) as one of the best players in Belgium, and sometimes doesn't show the ethics that are expected at that level. Everybody in our club is still laughing about it. Nobody, not even the shark, did object anything. There is another case, perhaps even more similar : when your partner has not followed on an earlier round of the suit, so that declarer now takes the marked finesse, hop in with the honor he is finessing against. It has worked again and again. Here, there isn't even a problem of 'concealing' your move, since your card must rest on the table at the time declarer plays to the trick Would anybody call this sharp practice ? And, of course, it is done with the purpose of catching an absentminded declarer. Survival of the fittest. You make an error, you pay for it, including the error of not looking at the cards. What's wrong about it ? Regards, Alain > > Tim > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 20:16:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77AExj22207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77AEqt22203 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA27019; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:11:05 +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 MAA23087; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:11:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00f301c11f29$dc67e0c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA><001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <003a01c11f20$06a55e80$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:15:18 +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: Olivier BEAUVILLAIN > I agree with JP Rocafort, your L43.B.3. should be presented as our > L43.B.2.C. It said exactly the same but it's slightly more simple. > Mathehatician calls that "distributivity". AG : I'd say it's alternability. An alternative, or alternable, operation is one where (a*a)*b = a*(a*b) and (a*b)*b = a*(b*b), a weakened form of associativity. If the operation here is deemed to be concatenation, we've got our equality. An example of an alternable, but not associative, operation is the multiplication of Cayley octonions. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 20:32:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77AVGr22220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:31:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtprt15.wanadoo.fr (smtprt15.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f77AVBt22216 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 20:31:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by smtprt15.wanadoo.fr; 7 Aug 2001 12:27:58 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.248.6.46) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 7 Aug 2001 12:27:48 +0200 Message-ID: <005201c11f2b$46c8bce0$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: "Alain Gottcheiner" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5E8@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA><001401c11b67$356557a0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><00d201c11c02$9cebdca0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be><016a01c11e78$a6a19280$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <003a01c11f20$06a55e80$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> <00f301c11f29$dc67e0c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML], discrepancy, was : Dummy Revokes Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:25:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olivier BEAUVILLAIN > > > > I agree with JP Rocafort, your L43.B.3. should be presented as our > > L43.B.2.C. It said exactly the same but it's slightly more simple. > > Mathehatician calls that "distributivity". I thought it was : (a+b)*c = a*c + b*c. Olivier. > > AG : I'd say it's alternability. > An alternative, or alternable, operation is one where (a*a)*b = a*(a*b) > and (a*b)*b = a*(b*b), a weakened form of associativity. If the operation > here is deemed to be concatenation, we've got our equality. > An example of an alternable, but not associative, operation is the > multiplication of Cayley octonions. > > Alain. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 22:10:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77C8K223345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:08:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f77C8Et23329 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:08:15 +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 f77C55X24116 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010807075435.00b23b20@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, 07 Aug 2001 08:07:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - In-Reply-To: <051401c11e84$a1272ca0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731085911.00b07760@127.0.0.1> <011801c11498$946fbd60$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731114008.00b27e00@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010806091130.00aba100@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:32 AM 8/6/01, Rik.Terveen wrote: >Can we imagine a competitive baseball player who doesn't know what the >'infield fly rule' is or a hockey player who doesn't know off side? I >find it hard. When we're watching basketball on TV and see a player >with possession flying over the sideline, we all yell 'Time out' >(player and audience!). Yet in the game where you're supposed to use >your brains (bridge), we assume that all players are illiterate and >can't possibly be smart enough to bare any responsibility for >understanding the laws. I do not assume that all, or even most, bridge players are illiterate, nor that they aren't be smart enough to bear responsibility for for understanding the laws. I do assume, with a great deal of emprical evidence to justify such an assumption, that most bridge players do not wish to have to bear such responsibility in order to play what, to them at least, is just a game. If we make their acceptance of such responsibility a precondition for indulging in their chosen passtime competitively, we make it far less attractive. We should want to make and use the laws in such a way as to add to our players' collective enjoyment of the game, not reduce it. Our players, for the most part, want to be able to trust in the fairness and sensibility of the laws without having to master them. Being smart and literate, they could surely master them if they wanted to, but they don't want to. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 7 22:52:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77Cnu229129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:49:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f77Cnkt29111 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:49:47 +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 f77Ckbo40147 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@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, 07 Aug 2001 08:48:52 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... In-Reply-To: <001601c11ef5$0a0b0640$0200000a@davishi> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:57 PM 8/6/01, Hirsch wrote: >I can only hope that you misread the original post. As I read it, >Declarer >made a legal play, presumably in tempo and without undue >emphasis. There is >nothing disgusting, despicable, or otherwise unkosher about anything. It >was a simple attempt to catch an inattentive defender that happened to >work. >What will we object to next, falsecarding? > >Or are you suggesting that the declarer was somehow unsportsmanlike in not >allowing the defender a "do over" when he realized his mistake? I am suggesting that declarer was unsportsmanlike in making a deliberate attempt to induce his opponent to make this particular mistake. True, it didn't violate a specific law, and I cannot adjust for the opponents. But I can tell this player that he is not welcome at my club for as long as he persists in his unsportsmanlike attitude. Consider a player who, when out of the led suit, routinely discards by flashing a card of the same color for a fraction of a second then turning it face down. This is not illegal. Moreover, every time he does it, the opponents can, and can legally be expected to, protect themselves by asking to see his card again, provided they remember to do so before they turn their own card. When his opponents fail to protect themselves, they have no recourse; I will not make score adjustments in their favor. But I legally can, and would, tell this player to stop doing this if he wishes to continue to be welcome at my club. If one genuinely believes that the deliberate ploy which was the original subject of the thread is perfectly proper, legal and ethical, one would not only add it to one's arsenal of declarer techniques, but would make a particular point of trotting it out against opponents who are known to have difficulty hearing. Yet I very much doubt that any of those who have made this argument in the theoretical context of this forum actually intend to adopt this strategy. They should ask themselves why not. 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 Aug 7 23:58:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77DvGb04866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:57:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77Dv6t04841 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:57:11 +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, 7 Aug 2001 15:55:21 +0200 Message-ID: <012901c11f48$af47a8e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:55:56 +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 f77DvCt04859 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Rik ter Veen To: Eric Landau Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:41 PM Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:07 PM Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - > At 10:32 AM 8/6/01, Rik.Terveen wrote: > > >Can we imagine a competitive baseball player who doesn't know what the > >'infield fly rule' is or a hockey player who doesn't know off side? I > >find it hard. When we're watching basketball on TV and see a player > >with possession flying over the sideline, we all yell 'Time out' > >(player and audience!). Yet in the game where you're supposed to use > >your brains (bridge), we assume that all players are illiterate and > >can't possibly be smart enough to bare any responsibility for > >understanding the laws. > > I do not assume that all, or even most, bridge players are illiterate, > nor that they aren't be smart enough to bear responsibility for for > understanding the laws. > > I do assume, with a great deal of emprical evidence to justify such an > assumption, that most bridge players do not wish to have to bear such > responsibility in order to play what, to them at least, is just a > game. If we make their acceptance of such responsibility a > precondition for indulging in their chosen passtime competitively, we > make it far less attractive. We should want to make and use the laws > in such a way as to add to our players' collective enjoyment of the > game, not reduce it. Our players, for the most part, want to be able > to trust in the fairness and sensibility of the laws without having to > master them. Being smart and literate, they could surely master them > if they wanted to, but they don't want to. > > Good. So far we agree. But now comes the next step. It's all right with me that players are not interested in mastering the rules of the game. But it goes way too far for me to claim that those who have a basic knowledge of the rules have an unfair advantage. That is, advantage: yes, unfair: no. To me, someone who realizes that he may have some option according to law 25 (or any other law) is comparable to the player who realizes that the count has been rectified for a squeeze. Similarly, ducking a trick to partner in a suit where you failed to follow suit earlier is good bridge. Changes in law 25 were properly announced. Lots of players chose to ignore the article and read something about squeezes instead. Saying that those who know law 25 have an unfair advantage is the same to me as saying those who read about squeezes have an unfair advantage. 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 Aug 7 23:59:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77Dxi905360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:59:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77Dxbt05342 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:59:38 +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, 7 Aug 2001 15:57:53 +0200 Message-ID: <012c01c11f49$0a105240$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Eric Landau" , "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:58:28 +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 f77Dxet05353 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > At 11:57 PM 8/6/01, Hirsch wrote: > > >I can only hope that you misread the original post. As I read it, > >Declarer > >made a legal play, presumably in tempo and without undue > >emphasis. There is > >nothing disgusting, despicable, or otherwise unkosher about anything. It > >was a simple attempt to catch an inattentive defender that happened to > >work. > >What will we object to next, falsecarding? > > > >Or are you suggesting that the declarer was somehow unsportsmanlike in not > >allowing the defender a "do over" when he realized his mistake? > > I am suggesting that declarer was unsportsmanlike in making a > deliberate attempt to induce his opponent to make this particular mistake. > > True, it didn't violate a specific law, and I cannot adjust for the > opponents. But I can tell this player that he is not welcome at my > club for as long as he persists in his unsportsmanlike attitude. > > Consider a player who, when out of the led suit, routinely discards by > flashing a card of the same color for a fraction of a second then > turning it face down. This is not illegal. Moreover, every time he > does it, the opponents can, and can legally be expected to, protect > themselves by asking to see his card again, provided they remember to > do so before they turn their own card. When his opponents fail to > protect themselves, they have no recourse; I will not make score > adjustments in their favor. But I legally can, and would, tell this > player to stop doing this if he wishes to continue to be welcome at my > club. > > If one genuinely believes that the deliberate ploy which was the > original subject of the thread is perfectly proper, legal and ethical, > one would not only add it to one's arsenal of declarer techniques, but > would make a particular point of trotting it out against opponents who > are known to have difficulty hearing. Yet I very much doubt that any > of those who have made this argument in the theoretical context of this > forum actually intend to adopt this strategy. They should ask > themselves why not. > > > 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 > It's one of declarer's jobs to fool the defenders. It's the defenders' job, to keep their eyes open. Such is bridge. We were talking about the case where declarer unexpectedly wanted the eight from dummy and the defenders were not paying attention. He did nothing to hide the played card. It was lying open on the table. That's nothing like 'flashing a card of the same color'. It is like playing a card of the same color. And if an opponent is not paying attention, it works. In bridge, you score by making less (or less expensive) mistakes than your opponents. 'Deceiving opponents while the cards are in plain view' doesn't work often, but it is a way to score. The condition is of course that you play your cards in the "mechanically" normal way. The nice thing is that the ploy also works better if you play the cards in normal tempo. What makes the subject sensitive is that it makes the opponent look dumb. That irritates. It's much kinder to the opponents to make your contract on a squeeze that they should have broken. 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 Aug 8 01:18:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIVn09850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77FHwt09805 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:17:59 +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 15U8ZB-000GnI-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:14:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:15:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> <002301c11db0$bc1dbe40$8d937ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <002301c11db0$bc1dbe40$8d937ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >I had not known that Yes was a country, albeit one with a particularly >lawless NBO. The only three-letter nation to have participated in >international competitions until now has been Bye, whose performances, >though modest, have at least been consistent. Presumably Yes has been >barred from taking its place on the international stage due to the >failure of its officials to conform with L12C3. Let us hope that this >deplorable state of affairs is swiftly remedied. We must remember Lille, where in one group Bye was next to bottom after two rounds. True, they had no VPs, but one team had scored no VPs, and had a PP of 2VPs applied to them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:18:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FITv09849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77FI4t09816 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:05 +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 15U8ZB-000Gop-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:14:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:17:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> <002301c11db0$bc1dbe40$8d937ad5@pbncomputer> <3B6E4D94.2080802@interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <3B6E4D94.2080802@interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >In the last match in Maastricht England was defeated by a nation which >name escapes me for the moment, but I have always found these >three-letter names hard to remember. :-) >Dziewczyny Poznan Motor Show 2001: http://motoryzacja.interia.pl/id/kw/b Of course, anyone who remembers the name Dziewczyny would have trouble with three letter ones! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:18:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIRP09848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f77FHxt09807 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15U8ZB-000GnM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:14:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:13:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <001601c11da2$fafd5b60$25b6f1c3@tkooij> 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 >Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better be 'yes', otherwise your NBO is >infringing the laws. >The EBL did not forbid AC to use 12C3. This is interesting, ton. When I wrote the Orange Book in 1995 it was recommended that I check with you concerning Zonal options. I may be wrong, but I thought your reply was that the European Bridge League had *delegated* to its NCBOs the right to decide Zonal options. >A better question could be: Is there an (silent) agreement in your NBO not >to use 12C3? >Or: are AC aware of the possibility to use 12C3? Please treat my questions as to whether L12C3 "is" used by ACs, not whether it "may be". Incidentally, which is correct: NBO or NCBO? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:18:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIG909833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77FI0t09808 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:01 +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 15U8ZA-000GnQ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:14:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:08:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD course in Tabiano References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D5@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >To quote Eric Landau: this gives these people a huge advantage since many of >the problems have been discussed here in one way or another. So let us stop >this discussion group. Or might that be the reason why we always try to >confuse the answers? Now I see why you answer the way you do, ton. That explains a lot ..... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:19:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIKN09842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77FHwt09804 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:17:59 +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 15U8ZB-000GnJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:14:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:23:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes >2 Do your Appeals Committees use L12C3 in top national competitions? Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales >3 Do your Appeals Committees use L12C3 in other competitions? Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales >4 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in top national competitions? Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales >5 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in other competitions? Yes: Ukraine, England, Wales No: Netherlands >6 Any other comments? Ukraine uses sympathetic weighting, and is re-considering #5. Netherlands only allows CTDs to use L12C3 in #4. Any more countries? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:19:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIdO09851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:39 +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 f77FIAt09830 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:11 +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 15U8ZK-000Gop-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:15:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:52:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Tim wrote: > >> > Since it is impossible to say what would have happened if the law >had >> > been correctly applied, I use 82C and score A+/A+ for both sides. >> >> NO NO NO NO NO! Just treat both sides as non-offending and give EW >> +420 (4H=) and NS -170 (3H+1) - WTP. > >Somewhat major. You can't do this. Either NS have offended (by >misexplaining 3C) or they have not (in my view, they have, for South's >explanation of 3C is obviously rubbish). If they have not offended, then >the table result stands; if they have offended, then there is the >question of whether EW have been damaged. This is a difficult question >for the AC, because on the one hand West passed 2H when he had correct >information about 1D; on the other, he said (and provided strong >empirical evidence) that he would have bid 4H had he had correct >information about 3C and before he knew the outcome of a heart contract. >You cannot, in short, refuse to consider the question of whether NS had >offended simply because the TD forgot to give West his pass back. > >While all this was going on, the TD cocked up a ruling. But he did not >do so in such a way that "no rectification will allow the board to be >played normally"; play was allowed to continue (normally), and then EW >were (normally) allowed to make their case regarding misinformation to >the TD and the AC. The TD was obviously out of it, so I don't really >care what he decided. If the AC was convinced (a) that misinformation >had occurred and (b) that West had been damaged thereby, then they would >have ruled 4H making; if not, they would have ruled 3H+1; if they wanted >to award a weighted score, this was within their purview. Again, what >they did is of little interest to me, provided that it was one of the >above. But there is no case for an adjustment as provided in L82C. The TD has cocked up a ruling, so surely L82C applies? What is the difference, you might ask. The difference is who is the offending side: under L82C there isn't one. Thus the assignments should be beneficial towards both sides. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:19:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIgv09853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:42 +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 f77FIDt09835 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:14 +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 15U8ZK-000GnM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:15:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:57:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde References: <000001c11da0$ba677600$36291dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000001c11da0$ba677600$36291dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn writes >> If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? > >(1) Apparently the easy part. I decide that pass is an LA for > East at this vulnerability. Adjusted to 1NT making whatever. >(2) I first need to enquire S why she first alerted 1NT, but then > passed. The problem with this hand is that I was not called back! Let us suppose, for the interesting legal point I was discussing with one of the best Swedish TDs, that when you ask her, she says "I originally thought it was for the minors, so I alerted. But then I changed my mind, decided it was natural, and passed." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:19:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIei09852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77FIBt09831 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15U8ZK-000GnJ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:14:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:49:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> B28 AT7 >> D:W J6 >> N/S 953 >> AQJT4 >> 83 J9642 >> A953 KQT82 >> AQT62 K >> 65 K7 >> KQ5 >> 74 >> J874 >> 9832 >> >> W N E S >> P 1D! 1S 1NT >> P P 2H P >> P(1) 3C P P >> 3H(2) P P(3) P >> >> (1) Before passing West asked the meaning of 1D and was told either 11-13 >> balanced or 10-15 with at least four diamonds. >> >> (2) Before bidding West asked the meaning of 3C and was told 5-4 or 4-5 in >> the minors. >> >> (3) Before East passed South added to his previous explanation: now he said >> 3C showed 5-4 or 4-5 in the minors, or possibly 11-13 with very good clubs. >> >> The Director was called at (3). He should, of course, have allowed West >> to take his 3H back, but failed to do so. At the end of the auction but >> before the play West said he would have bid "this", and wrote "4H" on a >> piece of paper and gave it to the Director. >> >> At the end of the hand West complained, saying he would have bid 4H not 3H >> with a correct explanation. He offered the piece of paper as evidence. Ten >> tricks were made. >> >> How should you now rule as Director? In Sweden L12C3 is *not* available >> to Directors. >> >> This will be appealed. How should you now rule as the AC? In Sweden >> L12C3 *is* available to ACs. > >I consider this mainly the TD's mistake: if he had correctly applied the >laws, then we wouldn't have had this problem. Now we have 2 conflicting >pieces of evidence: west's statement that he'd bid 4H with the correct >explanation and west's hand plus the passes over both 1NT and 2H. > >Since it is impossible to say what would have happened if the law had been >correctly applied, I use 82C and score A+/A+ for both sides. This is the sort of hand where I do not understand why people use ArtASs when the Law requires AssASs, but perhaps the wording of Henk's reply gives the clue. When you assign a score under L12C2 [or L12C3] you *never* need to decide *what would have happened*. That is not the way assigning is done. Putting it very simply, you just consider all reasonably possible results, then give the best to a NO side. That is extremely easy in this case, you have no need for A+/A+. The only results with any sanity at all are 4H= and 3H+1. You just decide whether they have any real likelihood and assign accordingly. At a recent event, a *very* high level event, some TDs were under time pressure, and very rushed. Because of this rather than assign they gave A+/A- in favour of the NOs. This required the NOs to appeal since they had attained more than 60% on the board even with the infraction. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 01:19:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77FIjZ09854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f77FICt09832 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:18:13 +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 15U8ZO-000GnQ-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:15:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 15:58:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde References: <008401c11d87$8696ba20$1c82b2c3@svk> In-Reply-To: <008401c11d87$8696ba20$1c82b2c3@svk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 12:54 AM >Subject: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde > > >> >> B56 87 >> D:W Q73 >> E/W T87 >> AKJ97 >> KJ63 T952 >> AJT2 K654 >> J3 AQ9 >> T85 63 >> AQ4 >> 98 >> K6542 >> Q42 >> >> W N E S >> P P P 1NT >> ..P(1) P Dbl P >> 2H 2NT(2) P P >> P >> >> (1) Agreed hesitation >> (2) Alerted by South. East contends, supported by West, that North >sighed >> deeply when his partner (who appeared to be his wife) alerted. North said >> he did not sigh but sounded unconvincing. South did not notice anything. >> >> I was called by both sides at the end of the auction, E/W to complain >> about the alleged sigh, N/S to complain about the hesitation. No >questions >> were asked about the meaning of the bidding. >> >> If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? > >About hesitation. >Pas is LA, so I rule 1NT for both sides. > >About North sighed. >I believe, that North really sighed more or less deeply and South really did >not notice anything. >In a real life many Norths sighed deeply independent of when his wife >alerted, or not alerted, or drives a car and in all this cases Souths did >not notice anything. > >I think that 74C2 is appropriated but I won't give PP if my attention is >attracted to this North for the first time. Only warning. > > >But I have questions for S. What does mean your allert? >Suppouse she answers 'both minor', then I give PP. Why? Either the sigh provided UI, in which case you consider an adjustment, or it didn't. A PP should not be affected by hte result on hte board. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 03:04:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77H3sv10021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:03:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f77H3lt10017 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:03:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-200.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.200]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 05421635B1 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 18:00:37 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5BBLML=5D_Law_25B_in_Sk=F6vde?= Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 17:55:30 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <005101c11f0a$e41fae20$3d267bd5@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >+=+ I can't say I recall any thoughts about it, but >> >I do note that Law 25B refers to 'side' not to >> >'contestant' so the score on the other table seems >> >not to be limited. I would wish to think whether the >> >score on the affected table is not balanced to 0 >> >rather than entered on the players' score cards >> >as -3. That could alter the swing to 5.5 IMPs. >> > ~ Grattan ~ >+=+ >> Chas Fellows (Brambledown): >> So I don't follow this at all. Have I missed something? >> >++=++ Probably not. This piece of the discussion was >about knockout situations. 'Side' means a pair at a >table; the 25B limitation applies therefore to the >score entered at that table. 'Contestant' means, here, >the team; balancing under 86B is balancing of the >scores between contestants. > Do we then look at > Team A -3 +11 = +8 > Team B +3 -11 = -8 >reminding ourselves that +/- 11 on table two is >notional, ... Sorry if I'm being dense, but for the 'side' (pair) making 3NT+2 (after application of L25B), the score they enter *at the table* is not -3 or + 11, but +660. The 25B limitation *cannot* be applied to this score until it has been compared with other score(s). In MP pairs, the pair would keep this score only if it scored less than 40%, otherwise it would be adjusted to Av-. As this is teams, the pair compare this score with their teammates, arrive at + 11 IMPs which is *then* adjusted to -3 IMPs (L25B). Their opponents score -660 compare this with their teammates, arrive at -11 IMPs which they keep. *Now*, if it is Knockout, L86B kicks in - balancing between 'contestants' (teams). Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 03:39:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77HcMI10827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:38:22 +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 f77HcFt10800 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:38:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts87.eiu.edu [139.67.16.87]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f77HYgR01183 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 12:34:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010807123937.0079c710@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:39:37 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... In-Reply-To: <001601c11ef5$0a0b0640$0200000a@davishi> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@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 think there has been a major misunderstanding in this thread that has caused the serious disagreement that followed. I hope Eric and the others who have contributed to this thread will tell me if I'm right. See below: At 11:57 PM 8/6/01 -0400, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:06 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > > >> At 05:47 PM 8/3/01, Ted wrote: >> >> >So, declarer lead up to the "8". Because of the noise and >> >hubbub (last board of the round and the noise from people >> >changing rounds early, etc) RHO heard "ace" and played low >> >without realizing that dummy had played the "8". After he >> >tabled his "x", he said "hey, you played the A" and was >> >informed by all at the table that he was incorrect and the >> >"8" was played. What has been deleted here is very important to this case. In the original it was stated that declarer was very careful to say '8', but it also said something to the effect that he acknowledged that with all the noise at the time he could have been misheard. _This is the key to the whole case_. If what is happening is that declarer has merely decided to play an unexpected card [the 8 rather than the A] to trap an inattentive defender, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. OTOH, if declarer played the 8 _because he knew that there was a chance that the defender would hear the card incorrectly_, then I agree with Eric that this is reprehensible. Trying to take advantage of noisy conditions to gain an extra trick is, I think, reprehensible. Yes, the defender should have been careful to look at the played card. But to try to manipulate the situation to produce a misheard play is, IMHO, entirely disgusting, and such a player is not welcome at my club either. So the crux of this case is this: if the key card in dummy had been, say, the 9 or the 7, or had the room been quiet, then declarer's ploy was perfectly acceptable. Occasionally a defender won't pay attention, will expect the A to be played, and will blow a trick. No problem there. OTOH, if declarer was trying to capitalize on the noise in the room in hopes of defender mis-hearing, then I regard his conduct as indefensible. His actual comments were ambiguous with regards to these two possiblities--I think that Eric is interpreting them in the latter sense, and everyone else in the former sense. At least, the analogies everyone is using seem to support those interpretations. >> > Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A >> >player to try this "coup" of his? >> >> It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable. > >I can only hope that you misread the original post. As I read it, Declarer >made a legal play, presumably in tempo and without undue emphasis. There is >nothing disgusting, despicable, or otherwise unkosher about anything. It >was a simple attempt to catch an inattentive defender that happened to work. >What will we object to next, falsecarding? As I said, this seems to assume that declarer was just hoping that the defender had not noticed that the A had not been played as expected. In that case, I agree that nothing bad has happened. >Or are you suggesting that the declarer was somehow unsportsmanlike in not >allowing the defender a "do over" when he realized his mistake? Well, if defender convinced me that he had legitimately _misheard due to the noise_, I would most certainly have given him a 'do over'. If he was inattentive, I wouldn't. I don't regard this as a legal requirement, of course, as I am one of those that think there are ethical requirements that go beyond our legal requirements. >>I can't >> find a specific law addressing it ("The laws are primarily designed not >> as punishment..."), but if this occurred in a club I was running, I >> would sit this player down and tell him in no uncertain terms that that >> is not how we play the game around here, and unless he changes his >> attitude towards the game right now and convincingly he is no longer >> welcome at my club. (In the more formal context of the WBL Unit Game, >> I would refer the matter to my C&E committee, and expect them to do >> much the same.) >> > >I used to direct at the WBL unit game several years ago. I also served a >term on the WBL Board of Directors, and a year on the C&E committee, so I >used to know that particular game quite well. I am quite confident that in >the absence of any change of tempo and inflection, the DIC and/or the C&E >committee would not look sympathetically at any suggestion that declarer's >play was somehow improper. Do you understand why Eric would regard it as an offense _if_ declarer made it clear that he deliberately played the '8' because he hoped that the noise in the room would cause the defenders to hear 'Ace' instead? >Regards, > >Hirsch Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 05:00:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f77J05223492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 05:00:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f77Ixvt23475 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 04:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f77ItA422526 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108071855.f77ItA422526@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010807123937.0079c710@eiu.edu> from "Grant Sterling" at Aug 07, 2001 12:39:37 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk TY: Okay, thanks to all who responded. First, Grant did pick up on one of the misunderstandings. Had it not been for 2 factors, I also agree with the majority of responders that it is a perfectly legal play and the defender deserved his poor score for the poor play and falling asleep. However...see below... > Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:39:37 -0500 > From: Grant Sterling > > I think there has been a major misunderstanding in this thread > that has caused the serious disagreement that followed. I hope Eric > and the others who have contributed to this thread will tell me if I'm > right. See below: > > At 11:57 PM 8/6/01 -0400, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:06 AM > > > >> At 05:47 PM 8/3/01, Ted wrote: > >> > >> >So, declarer lead up to the "8". Because of the noise and > >> >hubbub (last board of the round and the noise from people > >> >changing rounds early, etc) RHO heard "ace" and played low > >> >without realizing that dummy had played the "8". After he > >> >tabled his "x", he said "hey, you played the A" and was > >> >informed by all at the table that he was incorrect and the > >> >"8" was played. > > What has been deleted here is very important to this case. In > the original it was stated that declarer was very careful to say '8', > but it also said something to the effect that he acknowledged that with > all the noise at the time he could have been misheard. > _This is the key to the whole case_. If what is happening is > that declarer has merely decided to play an unexpected card [the 8 rather > than the A] to trap an inattentive defender, then there's absolutely nothing > wrong with this. > OTOH, if declarer played the 8 _because he knew that there was a > chance that the defender would hear the card incorrectly_, then I agree > with Eric that this is reprehensible. Trying to take advantage of noisy > conditions to gain an extra trick is, I think, reprehensible. Yes, the > defender should have been careful to look at the played card. But to try > to manipulate the situation to produce a misheard play is, IMHO, entirely > disgusting, and such a player is not welcome at my club either. > So the crux of this case is this: if the key card in dummy had been, > say, the 9 or the 7, or had the room been quiet, then declarer's ploy > was perfectly acceptable. Occasionally a defender won't pay attention, > will expect the A to be played, and will blow a trick. No problem there. > OTOH, if declarer was trying to capitalize on the noise in the room in hopes > of defender mis-hearing, then I regard his conduct as indefensible. His > actual comments were ambiguous with regards to these two possiblities--I think > that Eric is interpreting them in the latter sense, and everyone else in the > former sense. At least, the analogies everyone is using seem to support > those interpretations. > TY: An additional point that I mentioned in the original. The declarer was one of the better flight A players in the room. The defenders were Flight C players who were relatively new to the game. One point I was trying to make (obviously not well) was, is this appropriate behaviour for a Flight A player to try and take advantage of new players to the game? This is the type of behaviour that discourages many of them from coming back to the game because duplicate players are rude, obnoxious, and they are rules lawyers who know the rules for duplicate play and take every advantage of them to abuse casual or less experienced players who don't know all the laws and subsections, etc. > >Or are you suggesting that the declarer was somehow unsportsmanlike in not > >allowing the defender a "do over" when he realized his mistake? > > Well, if defender convinced me that he had legitimately _misheard > due to the noise_, I would most certainly have given him a 'do over'. If > he was inattentive, I wouldn't. I don't regard this as a legal requirement, > of course, as I am one of those that think there are ethical requirements > that go beyond our legal requirements. > TY: And taking into account the level of player, I think that for propriety's sake, it is bad form to encourage this when it only serves to thin our ranks even more. This is the reason that I asked if anyone would change the result. However, if you do change the result, one should give a warning to the defender to be more cautious as director's may not always protect him from this type of error or problem. > >I used to direct at the WBL unit game several years ago. I also served a > >term on the WBL Board of Directors, and a year on the C&E committee, so I > >used to know that particular game quite well. I am quite confident that in > >the absence of any change of tempo and inflection, the DIC and/or the C&E > >committee would not look sympathetically at any suggestion that declarer's > >play was somehow improper. > > Do you understand why Eric would regard it as an offense _if_ > declarer made it clear that he deliberately played the '8' because he hoped > that the noise in the room would cause the defenders to hear 'Ace' instead? > FYI, the director called to the table was never made aware of this fact. This fact only came out at the diner after the game when several of us were our running boards and getting dinner. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 11:04:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7812ew09370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:02:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7812Xt09365 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:02:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.110.3] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15UHgx-0002R8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 01:59:24 +0100 Message-ID: <004501c11fa5$6032ee60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200108071855.f77ItA422526@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:59:26 +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 Ted wrote: > TY: Okay, thanks to all who responded. > > First, Grant did pick up on one of the misunderstandings. Had it > not been for 2 factors, I also agree with the majority of responders > that it is a perfectly legal play and the defender deserved his > poor score for the poor play and falling asleep. > > However...see below... Much anecdotage (solid stuff from all concerned, be it said) snipped. This discussion appears to me to have reached a point at which legality takes a back seat and morality takes the steering wheel. Eric, rightly, says that "if you want to play like that, fine, but you're not welcome in my club". Those who would play like that and yet feel aggrieved that Eric will not welcome them to his club may very well be right to do so - after all, no one would say that they are not among the most solid and Law-abiding citizens on the planet. Both sides have the right of it - of course, it's legitimate to play the eight and hope that RHO is asleep, just as it's legitimate to play the king in front of dummy's AQ and hope that declarer will call for the queen anyway. By the same token, in the "could have known" case, it's human nature to want to rule against North-South, even though the Laws themselves allow of no basis whatever on which to do so, short of calling North-South cheats. There will be occasions - many of them - on which you will feel that a pair has been guilty of sharp practice, even immoral conduct, yet have to concede that they have done nothing illegal and can find no legal basis on which to adjust the score to their detriment. The "sportsmanlike dumping" debate that occupied the hearts and minds of the Bridge World editorial staff and its readership for many moons is a case in point. The truth is, though, that however one formulates the Laws, there will be opportunities for such sharp practice, and the way in which one reacts to it has no real bearing on how the Laws ought to be formulated instead. I've been fast-carded before; I've accepted the result ruefully, and I've never tried the trick on anyone else. But that's just me, and everyone else's reaction to this thread is just them. Grattan Endicott has said: "It is never unethical to wish to play a game according to its Laws". Eric Landau has said: "It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable." They are both right. Arguments to the effect that one or other of them is wrong are pointless. 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 Aug 8 11:26:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f781PJN09398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:25:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f781PEt09394 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:25:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.157.14] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15UI2t-0003uX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 02:22:04 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c11fa8$8aba0c60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 02:21:28 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > The TD has cocked up a ruling, so surely L82C applies? What is the > difference, you might ask. The difference is who is the offending side: > under L82C there isn't one. Thus the assignments should be beneficial > towards both sides. I don't think this is so. Law 82C says: If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. Well, the Director has failed to allow a man to take his bid back when he could have done. But that does not mean that "no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally". The position is, in effect, the same as if the TD had been called when it was too late for West to take his bid back. Then, "rectification" would be in the hands of the TD and AC, who would have to decide what West would have done given correct information. But such rectification would "allow the board to be scored normally", since the TD would award an adjusted score (which the AC might or might not then vary). Adjusted scores, while unusual, are not abnormal. In short, you cannot use 82C except in cases where because of a TD's error, normal play on the board *and normal adjudication by a TD or AC as to the result of a board* is impossible. If the Law said: "no rectification will allow the board to be played normally", then DWS's argument would be sound. As matters are, I do not think that it is. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 13:26:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f783Od009570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:24:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f783OXt09566 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:24:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauglf.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.175]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA25344 for ; Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001701c11fb9$2b8f31a0$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:21:06 -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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > At 11:57 PM 8/6/01, Hirsch wrote: > > > I am suggesting that declarer was unsportsmanlike in making a > deliberate attempt to induce his opponent to make this particular mistake. > > True, it didn't violate a specific law, and I cannot adjust for the > opponents. Not only did it not violate a specific law, but the right to make a deceptive play is protected by L73E, with the usual caveats I have been stating, that the declarer used normal tempo etc. >But I can tell this player that he is not welcome at my > club for as long as he persists in his unsportsmanlike attitude. > > Consider a player who, when out of the led suit, routinely discards by > flashing a card of the same color for a fraction of a second then > turning it face down. This is not illegal. Of course it's illegal. "Flashing" a card briefly is a violation of 45G and probably also 73A2, 73D2, and 74C7 (or some combination therein). Give the appropriate penalty, and hang the hide on the wall to deter would-be miscreants in the future. >Moreover, every time he > does it, the opponents can, and can legally be expected to, protect > themselves by asking to see his card again, provided they remember to > do so before they turn their own card. When his opponents fail to > protect themselves, they have no recourse; I will not make score > adjustments in their favor. But I legally can, and would, tell this > player to stop doing this if he wishes to continue to be welcome at my > club. > > If one genuinely believes that the deliberate ploy which was the > original subject of the thread is perfectly proper, legal and ethical, > one would not only add it to one's arsenal of declarer techniques, but > would make a particular point of trotting it out against opponents who > are known to have difficulty hearing. We may not be as apart as it sounds. If I thought that declarer was deliberately using the noise to obscure his call, I'd have a very close look at the word "clearly" in 46A. However, in the present case, there's that 8 in Dummy's hand, clearly played. RHO was not paying attention, and would have to be visually as well as hearing impaired. While Declarer may have hoped the noise would cause a slip-up, there's no reason to believe that he did anything out of tempo, unclear, or deceptive in any way except for the legitimate selection of his play. >Yet I very much doubt that any > of those who have made this argument in the theoretical context of this > forum actually intend to adopt this strategy. They should ask > themselves why not. > > 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 Aug 8 14:13:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f784CGB19011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:12:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f784C9t18993 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:12:09 +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 OAA13616 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:16:02 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 13:58:49 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: "bridge-laws::.gov.au":"rgb.anu.edu.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:20:58 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2001 02:02:45 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: [snip] >OTOH, if declarer was trying to capitalize on the noise in the >room in hopes of defender mis-hearing, then I regard his conduct >as indefensible. [snip] I regard the conduct of the noisy players and the hapless TD as indefensible. It is a clear violation of L74A2 to distract other players, merely because the noisettes concerned have finished early. And it is equally clearly the responsibility of the TD to enforce silence in the playing area (unless the TD was also chattering, in which case the SO should defenestrate the TD). Ted Ying wrote: [snip] >TY: An additional point that I mentioned in the original. The >declarer was one of the better flight A players in the room. The >defenders were Flight C players who were relatively new to the >game. One point I was trying to make (obviously not well) was, >is this appropriate behaviour for a Flight A player to try and >take advantage of new players to the game? This is the type of >behaviour that discourages many of them from coming back to the >game because duplicate players are rude, obnoxious, and they are >rules lawyers who know the rules for duplicate play and take every >advantage of them to abuse casual or less experienced players who >don't know all the laws and subsections, etc. My morality, when playing against beginners, is still to double them for +800. But I make a point of *not gloating*, and sympathise with them about their bad luck. And, if they ask, I am happy to give them a few simple tips on how to advance their bridge abilities. Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >Consider a player who, when out of the led suit, routinely discards by >flashing a card of the same color for a fraction of a second then >turning it face down. This is not illegal. [snip] Some of the time it is illegal - L45G. But I agree with Eric that if it is legally discarded in that fashion (by fourth seat), then such an action is immoral. For eradication of dubious practices, I am a supporter of the Kaplan approach. Instead of the extra-legal social sanction of eviction from the SO (recommended by Eric), change TFLB to prohibit the action concerned. A simple addition to L45G, prohibiting the turning of cards in over- hasty tempo, would solve Eric's hypothetical. And Ted Ying's original problem could be dealt with if the TD was given the specific power to adjust a score when a third party violated L74. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 14:16:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f784F3o19703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:15:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f784Evt19677 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:14:57 +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 OAA15706 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:18:53 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 14:01:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:04:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2001 02:05:37 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >Let us suppose, for the interesting legal point I was discussing with >one of the best Swedish TDs, that when you ask her, she says "I >originally thought it was for the minors, so I alerted. But then I >changed my mind, decided it was natural, and passed." I play an almost HUM system, causing me to make rhythmn alerts. But sometimes pard double-crosses me by making a natural call, forcing me to change my autopilot "Alert!" to "Unalert!" :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 15:00:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f784wgD24895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:58:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f784wbt24891 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:58:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA22236 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 15:02:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 14:45:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:50:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/08/2001 02:49:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: [snip] >I said previously that if I judged the purpose of the pause actually was >deliberately to stop partner bidding (rather than a genuine problem for >the player concerned) that I would adjust (and if the player knew such was >illegal send to the L&E committee). I still want to do that but I can't >actually see which law I would be using. So while Herman and I may >disagree on the judgement of the specific case we at least have this >difficulty in common. [snip] >We seem to be left with 73B1. [snip] >It doesn't quite fit because only one member of the partnership is doing >anything wrong (after all this ploy doesn't work if partner is unethical!) >but we do need something. > >Tim I prefer L73B2, and expel the reverse hesitator. Prearranged communication has occurred (between the R. H. and itself) as this ploy by its nature is not spur-of-the-moment. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 18:27:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f788Q4M08983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:26:04 +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 f788Pvt08979 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:25:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA18245; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:22:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 08 10:21:14 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 <01K6VZ397UH8000LO1@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:21:59 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:22:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 10:21:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8EB@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 > > Ton Kooijman writes > >Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better be 'yes', > otherwise your NBO is > >infringing the laws. > >The EBL did not forbid AC to use 12C3. Thanks to David we know how to read my comment (question 1 applied to bye's and not to 12c3) > > This is interesting, ton. When I wrote the Orange Book in > 1995 it was > recommended that I check with you concerning Zonal options. I may be > wrong, but I thought your reply was that the European Bridge > League had > *delegated* to its NCBOs the right to decide Zonal options. I don't remember this, but that is by far not any proof. Still I hope that you are wrong. And probably there was never a letter to support this liberal approach. What I do remember is that after '97 I summarized the laws for which the EBL should take a position and sent it to the EBL. But I don't believe it ever left its office. Which makes it necessary to give it another try, and I don't mind if one of the options is to leave all these matters to the NBO's though personally I prefer a zonal approach. What if Sweden does allow questioning revokes by defenders and ask you to be TD there and invite Dutch players? I know you are flexible, but the Dutch? I would like to have an EBL decision when we have our TD-course next month, having TD's from most countries together. 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 Aug 8 18:39:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f788dWw09000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:39:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f788dQt08996 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 18:39:27 +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 15UOp5-000Fzq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 08:36:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 02:55:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> <005701c11fa8$8aba0c60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005701c11fa8$8aba0c60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> The TD has cocked up a ruling, so surely L82C applies? What is the >> difference, you might ask. The difference is who is the offending >side: >> under L82C there isn't one. Thus the assignments should be beneficial >> towards both sides. > >I don't think this is so. Law 82C says: > >If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director >subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will >allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, >considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. > >Well, the Director has failed to allow a man to take his bid back when >he could have done. But that does not mean that "no rectification will >allow the board to be scored normally". The position is, in effect, the >same as if the TD had been called when it was too late for West to take >his bid back. Then, "rectification" would be in the hands of the TD and >AC, who would have to decide what West would have done given correct >information. But such rectification would "allow the board to be scored >normally", since the TD would award an adjusted score (which the AC >might or might not then vary). Adjusted scores, while unusual, are not >abnormal. > >In short, you cannot use 82C except in cases where because of a TD's >error, normal play on the board *and normal adjudication by a TD or AC >as to the result of a board* is impossible. If the Law said: "no >rectification will allow the board to be played normally", then DWS's >argument would be sound. As matters are, I do not think that it is. A normal score on a board is one reached by the normal method via the Law. In the given case that includes a player being allowed to change his call, and then we have no doubt what he would have done. Now that has not happened, a normal score is no longer possible, so we must use L82C. This seems fair, since I am not penalising either side for a Director's error: you are penalising one side by treating them as offending. In effect there are two offences, one of MI, one by the Director. Just because there is an offending side for the first offence does not mean that the same side should suffer for the second offence. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 8 19:04:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7894gn09026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:04:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7894at09022 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 19:04:36 +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, 8 Aug 2001 11:02:49 +0200 Message-ID: <001f01c11fe8$fccf43c0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Volker R. Walther" , "BLML" References: <012901c11f48$af47a8e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <3B70066A.6CB27C43@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 11:03:26 +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 f7894ct09023 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Volker, The problem that people have with L25B is that it gives a player a right to do something even when no irregularity has occured. (Misbidding is not an irregularity.) Those people say L25B is bad, because in practice people who know L25B can use the option while people who don't know L25B cannot use it. I do not contest their observation, but I do contest their conclusion that L25B is bad. My point of view is that knowledge of the laws is bridge knowledge, just as much as knowledge about squeezes is. I agree that most of the players do not know the laws, but then again most of the players can't execute a squeeze either. Just as knowing how to execute a squeeze is an advantage at the bridge table, so is knowing the Laws. I contest that that is unfair. Greetings, Rik ----- Original Message ----- From: Volker R. Walther To: Rik Terveen Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 5:16 PM Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - > I do not believe that most of the players are understanding the law. > Some of them may not even know it. But they do not need to know all > aspects of the law. > If South tries to change his bid because he didn't realize the bid > West made, it's enough that someone at the table realizes that an > irregularity has happened. So the TD has to be called and he should > know the laws and apply them. According to L 9 that is the only way to > handle the situation and no player needs to know anything about L 25. > > Greetings, Volker > > > Rik Terveen wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Rik ter Veen > > To: Eric Landau > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 3:41 PM > > Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Eric Landau > > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 2:07 PM > > Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - > > > > > At 10:32 AM 8/6/01, Rik.Terveen wrote: > > > > > > >Can we imagine a competitive baseball player who doesn't know what the > > > >'infield fly rule' is or a hockey player who doesn't know off side? I > > > >find it hard. When we're watching basketball on TV and see a player > > > >with possession flying over the sideline, we all yell 'Time out' > > > >(player and audience!). Yet in the game where you're supposed to use > > > >your brains (bridge), we assume that all players are illiterate and > > > >can't possibly be smart enough to bare any responsibility for > > > >understanding the laws. > > > > > > I do not assume that all, or even most, bridge players are illiterate, > > > nor that they aren't be smart enough to bear responsibility for for > > > understanding the laws. > > > > > > I do assume, with a great deal of emprical evidence to justify such an > > > assumption, that most bridge players do not wish to have to bear such > > > responsibility in order to play what, to them at least, is just a > > > game. If we make their acceptance of such responsibility a > > > precondition for indulging in their chosen passtime competitively, we > > > make it far less attractive. We should want to make and use the laws > > > in such a way as to add to our players' collective enjoyment of the > > > game, not reduce it. Our players, for the most part, want to be able > > > to trust in the fairness and sensibility of the laws without having to > > > master them. Being smart and literate, they could surely master them > > > if they wanted to, but they don't want to. > > > > > > > > Good. So far we agree. But now comes the next step. It's all right with me that players are not interested in mastering the rules of the game. But it goes way too far for me to claim that those who have a basic knowledge of the rules have an unfair advantage. That is, advantage: yes, unfair: no. > > > > To me, someone who realizes that he may have some option according to law 25 (or any other law) is comparable to the player who realizes that the count has been rectified for a squeeze. Similarly, ducking a trick to partner in a suit where you failed to follow suit earlier is good bridge. > > > > Changes in law 25 were properly announced. Lots of players chose to ignore the article and read something about squeezes instead. Saying that those who know law 25 have an unfair advantage is the same to me as saying those who read about squeezes have an unfair advantage. > > > > 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/ > > > -- > 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 Wed Aug 8 21:34:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78BXpP09175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:33:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f78BXit09171 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:33:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA13541; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:29:52 +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 NAA26421; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:30:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <005f01c11ffe$0897b9c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 13:34:06 +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: Eric Landau . > > Consider a player who, when out of the led suit, routinely discards by > flashing a card of the same color for a fraction of a second then > turning it face down. This is not illegal. AG : yes, it is. L74C7. Moreover, every time he > does it, the opponents can, and can legally be expected to, protect > themselves by asking to see his card again, provided they remember to > do so before they turn their own card. When his opponents fail to > protect themselves, they have no recourse. I will not make score > adjustments in their favor. AG : you could.74C7, 72A1, 74A3. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 01:26:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78FPUY22543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 01:25:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f78FPNt22539 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 01:25:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.60.223] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15UV9r-0005TV-00; Wed, 08 Aug 2001 16:22:08 +0100 Message-ID: <003401c1201d$e5b3f0c0$dd6a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> <005701c11fa8$8aba0c60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:22:05 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > In effect there are two offences, one of MI, one by the Director. > Just because there is an offending side for the first offence does not > mean that the same side should suffer for the second offence. Given that one accepts for the moment the rather weird notion that a Director can be an offending side, why should the (real) offending side in the case of the first offence be exempted from suffering for it in the normal way? If you give +420 and -170, then the side that has given a wrong explanation has done so without consequence. Moreover, you have generated for no good reason a board on which more than 100% of the matchpoints are available, and the field is not going to be very happy with you for doing that. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 02:59:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78GwfA22608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 02:58:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f78GwZt22604 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 02:58:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp3.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f78GuTE16113 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:56:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001f01c1202a$dc21c340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:51:16 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > A simple addition to L45G, prohibiting the turning of cards in over- > hasty tempo, would solve Eric's hypothetical. Already covered by L73D2, isn't it?: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent...through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play..., or by the manner in which the call or play is made." Perhaps L45G should reference L73D2. 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 Aug 9 04:38:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78IbO822944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:37:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f78IbFt22938 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:37:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from svk (27.dialup.kar.net [195.178.130.27]) by jet.kar.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f78IY1a52243 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:34:02 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <004301c12039$8623c380$1b82b2c3@svk> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <008401c11d87$8696ba20$1c82b2c3@svk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:36:28 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk snip I wrote >> > >But I have questions for S. What does mean your allert? > >Suppouse she answers 'both minor', then I give PP. David Stevenson wrote > > Why? > > Either the sigh provided UI, in which case you consider an adjustment, > or it didn't. A PP should not be affected by hte result on hte board. I mean the L73A. Possibly she changed her mind without seeing partner's sigh but it is very doubtful concurrence. She was sure that she hasn't notice anything; her partner thought that he hasn't sigh. But I guess they both have the unrealised perception. She didn't see sigh, she felt it. It is inappropriate communication between partners, and I give PP for violation of L73A1, but in spite of the result on this board. And I inform the local Ethic Committee. I know cases when EC recommended to do some pause in playing together. I don't think that we have violation of the 72B4, but it is possible. By the way, does anybody have "Black Book" for registration such cases? 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 Thu Aug 9 04:50:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78Inc722961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:49:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f78InUt22957 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 04:49:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-41-31.frankfurt.gigabell.net [194.29.41.31] (may be forged)) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f78IkR224949 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:46:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000301c1203a$fabd8180$1f291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 20:39:14 +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 "Eric Landau" wrote: > At 11:57 PM 8/6/01, Hirsch wrote: > > >I can only hope that you misread the original post. As I read it, > >Declarer > >made a legal play, presumably in tempo and without undue > >emphasis. There is > >nothing disgusting, despicable, or otherwise unkosher about anything. It > >was a simple attempt to catch an inattentive defender that happened to > >work. > >What will we object to next, falsecarding? > > > >Or are you suggesting that the declarer was somehow unsportsmanlike in not > >allowing the defender a "do over" when he realized his mistake? > > I am suggesting that declarer was unsportsmanlike in making a > deliberate attempt to induce his opponent to make this particular mistake. > > True, it didn't violate a specific law, and I cannot adjust for the > opponents. But I can tell this player that he is not welcome at my > club for as long as he persists in his unsportsmanlike attitude. > > Consider a player who, when out of the led suit, routinely discards by > flashing a card of the same color for a fraction of a second then > turning it face down. This is not illegal. Moreover, every time he > does it, the opponents can, and can legally be expected to, protect > themselves by asking to see his card again, provided they remember to > do so before they turn their own card. When his opponents fail to > protect themselves, they have no recourse; I will not make score > adjustments in their favor. But I legally can, and would, tell this > player to stop doing this if he wishes to continue to be welcome at my > club. Did you ever play a pseudo squeeze, Eric? 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 Aug 9 06:05:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78K42A22996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:04:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f78K3ut22992 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:03:57 +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 QAA19111 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:00:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA20918 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:00:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108082000.QAA20918@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: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > You can't use 73D1 since the hesitation is deliberate This is where I was disagreeing with Herman, although he never stated this position so clearly. Maybe I misunderstood his problem. I repeat: the headings are not part of the laws. The relevant sentence in L73D1 reads: "However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side." Was this player "particularly careful?" Could he have recognized the position as one where a variation "may work to the benefit" of his side? If 'no' and 'yes', we have at least an irregularity, and L72B1 lets us adjust if the other conditions are met. There is no need to assert that the variation in tempo was intended to enforce a pass from partner. All we need is that the relevant "could have known" and "likely" conditions are met and also that there was no genuine bridge problem to justify the pause. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 06:59:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78Kwns26675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:58:49 +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 f78Kwht26659 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:58:44 +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 QAA21710 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA20980 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:55:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:55:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108082055.QAA20980@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: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I prefer L73B2, and expel the reverse hesitator. Prearranged communication > has occurred (between the R. H. and itself) as this ploy by its nature is > not spur-of-the-moment. 1. Why shouldn't it be spur-of-the-moment? Granted, it probably isn't, but there must have been some moment when the villain first thought of the ploy. Why shouldn't that moment be at the table? But really this is a side issue. You will give the same score whether it's L73B1 or 73B2 that was violated. 2. Where is the communication? After all, the reverse hesitation would work perfectly if you or I or any other BLML reader were the villain's partner. (Perhaps we are playing one round of an individual. I trust none of us would knowingly partner a reverse hesitator.) I still haven't seen a valid objection to 73D1. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 07:07:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f78L7Ce28710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:07:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f78L76t28688 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:07:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA22068 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA21006 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108082103.RAA21006@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Laws Bridge? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Questions: Is thinking about L16A thinking > reasonably about bridge? Yes, I think so, with the qualification that the time to think must (as always) be commensurate with the difficulty of the problem posed. If you have to think for more than a couple of seconds about which alternatives are suggested, chances are none of them is. Deciding which alternatives are logical ones may take longer, although that too should be pretty quick in the ACBL. (Over here, if it isn't completely silly, it's probably a LA.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 16:44:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f796fr822192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:41:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f796fkt22188 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-74-225.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.74.225] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15UjSg-000Ffr-00; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 07:38:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c1209e$2cc03480$e14a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8EB@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:38:22 +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: 'David Stevenson' ; Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 9:21 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > > > > Ton Kooijman writes > > >Your answers on the questions 1 and 2 better be 'yes', > > otherwise your NBO is > > >infringing the laws. > > >The EBL did not forbid AC to use 12C3. > > > I thought your reply was that the European Bridge > > League had *delegated* to its NCBOs the right to > > decide Zonal options. > > I don't remember this, but that is by far not any > proof. Still I hope that you are wrong. > And probably there was never a letter to support > this liberal approach. > +=+ About 1987/88 there was a discussion in the EBL on this question and the argument was made that there is such a diversity of approach on things like system policy and so on, as between say the French and the Scandinavians, or again some eastern European countries and the UK, that we should not think fit to attempt to require them all to do the same thing in their domestic competitions. The Laws Committee expressed its opinion that the EBL should not seek to determine the answers, and that where the law allows of options questions should be delegated to the NBOs. I do not know what was done to apprise NBOs of the view adopted: it may have been included in whatever was sent when the new laws were introduced, or it may just have been included in minutes. Since that time I do not recall any further occasion when the subject has come up, except I do remember that David did ask when he was working on the Orange Book. One would think the subject must have been looked at again in 1997, but I do not know. During the period when Edgar was Chairman and I Vice Chairman of the WBFLC we worked together to find paths of compromise between the strongly held positions of the ACBL and the EBL. This led to the presence of a number of options for Zones in the Laws. We accepted a principle that procedures could quite properly be different but that in matters of judgement we should aim for common understandings of the game. I am still of the opinion that this was a good approach. ~ 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 Aug 9 17:50:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f797o3q22240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:50:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f797nvt22236 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:49:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-76-63.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.76.63] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15UkWh-000M8S-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 08:46:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c120a7$b43b58a0$e14a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200108071855.f77ItA422526@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <004501c11fa5$6032ee60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 08:47:55 +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 5.00.2615.200 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: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > > Grattan Endicott has said: "It is never unethical > to wish to play a game according to its Laws". Eric > Landau has said: "It was worse than wrong; it was > disgusting and despicable." They are both right. > Arguments to the effect that one or other of > them is wrong are pointless. > +=+ There is much to be said for waiting to see what card is placed in the played position before in turn contributing to a trick. We make much of the fact that the rules specify the game. Any game, including bridge. If we think we can improve the game we should alter the specifications. Laws 72 through 75 are concerned with the ethical conduct of players, and they start with 72A1. The only reference I can find to sportsmanlike behaviour in the WBF Regs concerns the acceptance of decisions of the TAC. They do call for the 'highest standards of ethics and conduct'; these standards can only be judged against the laws of the game - conceptions of morality vary widely throughout the world and need definition if they do not mean 'playing a game according to its rules'. You and I may be outraged, but if it is within the law it is within the law. And although we think an action improper we are not entitled to impose our morality on others except by a process of law exercised within the jurisdiction of the court. The UN War Crimes Tribunal does not convict on grounds of immorality but for specific conduct agreed internationally to be criminal. When it is said 'they are both right' it is an incomplete statement; each is right according to his own view of the ethics and may condemn another but not convict on that basis. ~ 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 Aug 9 20:32:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79AWHN22369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:32:17 +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 f79AW8t22361 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:32:09 +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 15Un3e-0006ul-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:28:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:57:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Cue-bid over Precision Club MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I cannot remember which thread but the question of ACBL alerting of 2C over a Precision club was raised. Gary Blaiss says: >While adjustments may be few and far between regardless of the >existence or non-existence of an Alert, an Alert should be given if the >2C bid over an artificial, forcing one club opening is other than >natural (offering to play -- or showing only clubs -- in clubs). -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 20:32:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79AW5k22357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:32:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f79AVxt22353 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:32:00 +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 15Un3V-0006uj-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:28:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 09:42:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8EB@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8EB@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >> This is interesting, ton. When I wrote the Orange Book in >> 1995 it was >> recommended that I check with you concerning Zonal options. I may be >> wrong, but I thought your reply was that the European Bridge >> League had >> *delegated* to its NCBOs the right to decide Zonal options. >I don't remember this, but that is by far not any proof. Still I hope that >you are wrong. >And probably there was never a letter to support this liberal approach. What >I do remember is that after '97 I summarized the laws for which the EBL >should take a position and sent it to the EBL. But I don't believe it ever >left its office. Which makes it necessary to give it another try, and I >don't mind if one of the options is to leave all these matters to the NBO's >though personally I prefer a zonal approach. What if Sweden does allow >questioning revokes by defenders and ask you to be TD there and invite Dutch >players? I know you are flexible, but the Dutch? Some of the options are those of the sponsoring organisation anyway, and thus may be different. Of course, there are regulations as well - one of the foreign teams in Skovde was quite annoyed with the regulations. I do not think that delegating a Zonal option would feel much different to players and Directors than sponsoring organisation options or regulations. >I would like to have an EBL decision when we have our TD-course next month, >having TD's from most countries together. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 20:32:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79AWGL22368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:32:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f79AW7t22360 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 20:32:07 +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 15Un3e-0006un-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 10:28:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:55:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes >2 Do your Appeals Committees use L12C3 in top national competitions? Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales, Germany, Sweden, Ireland, Australia >3 Do your Appeals Committees use L12C3 in other competitions? Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales, Germany, Sweden [*], Ireland, Australia [*] Perhaps someone could confirm this? >4 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in top national competitions? Yes: Ukraine, England, Wales, Germany Yes [CTD only]: Netherlands, Ireland No: Sweden, Australia >5 Are your Directors allowed to use L12C3 in other competitions? Yes: Ukraine, England, Wales, Germany Yes [CTD only]: Ireland No: Netherlands, Sweden, Australia Any more countries? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 21:20:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79BK4T00674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:20:04 +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 f79BJqt00670 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:19:56 +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 15Unno-000J7r-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:16:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:55:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > >B56 87 >D:W Q73 >E/W T87 > AKJ97 >KJ63 T952 >AJT2 K654 >J3 AQ9 >T85 63 > AQ4 > 98 > K6542 > Q42 > > W N E S > P P P 1NT >..P(1) P Dbl P >2H 2NT(2) P P > P > >(1) Agreed hesitation >(2) Alerted by South. East contends, supported by West, that North sighed >deeply when his partner (who appeared to be his wife) alerted. North said >he did not sigh but sounded unconvincing. South did not notice anything. > > I was called by both sides at the end of the auction, E/W to complain >about the alleged sigh, N/S to complain about the hesitation. No questions >were asked about the meaning of the bidding. > > If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? It appears that the question that intrigued us is not how anyone here would have ruled, so I shall ask it as a hypothetical question. It appears that East's use of UI has not damaged N/S. Without such use the result would be 1NT+1, with it was 2NT=. Admittedly this takes horrible defence, but that it what it got at the table. So for E/W I think it is clear that the result stands. Now, suppose you consider the pass of 2NT to be influenced [perhaps] by the sigh, ie you consider pass suggested by the sigh, while 3C or 3D are LAs that will lead to worse scores. Say +110 instead of +120. Do you adjust? If you do not then you have allowed them to profit from illegal use of UI. But thye should never have been in this position: 1NT should have been passed out. In other words, do you adjust for an OS using as part of your adjustment an infraction *by the other side*? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 21:20:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79BKMb00687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:20:22 +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-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 f79BKBt00678 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:20:12 +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 15Unno-000J7p-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:16:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:49:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde References: <008401c11d87$8696ba20$1c82b2c3@svk> <004301c12039$8623c380$1b82b2c3@svk> In-Reply-To: <004301c12039$8623c380$1b82b2c3@svk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sergey Kapustin writes >By the way, does anybody have "Black Book" for registration such cases? From time to time hands with some ethical situation involved are submitted to the EBU L&EC. If there is seen to be any question in them then the form will be kept. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 21:20:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79BKOb00690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:20:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79BKBt00677 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:20:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15Unnr-000J8F-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 12:16:55 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:44:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> <005701c11fa8$8aba0c60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> <003401c1201d$e5b3f0c0$dd6a7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003401c1201d$e5b3f0c0$dd6a7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> In effect there are two offences, one of MI, one by the Director. >> Just because there is an offending side for the first offence does not >> mean that the same side should suffer for the second offence. > >Given that one accepts for the moment the rather weird notion that a >Director can be an offending side, why should the (real) offending side >in the case of the first offence be exempted from suffering for it in >the normal way? If you give +420 and -170, then the side that has given >a wrong explanation has done so without consequence. Moreover, you have >generated for no good reason a board on which more than 100% of the >matchpoints are available, and the field is not going to be very happy >with you for doing that. I do not expect the field to be happy with a Director who makes errors. But the Law is clear: treat both sides as non-offending. So a board with a total of more than 100% is potentially created every time a Director makes a mistake when ruling on 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 Aug 9 21:59:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79BxI500756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:59:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f79BxCt00752 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f79BtxX08298 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 07:55:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010809075247.00ab5110@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, 09 Aug 2001 07:58:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... In-Reply-To: <000301c1203a$fabd8180$1f291dc2@rabbit> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@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 02:39 PM 8/8/01, Thomas wrote: >Did you ever play a pseudo squeeze, Eric? Yes. In my view, this is the moral equivalent of ducking a trick when fourth hand expects me to play the ace. In both cases, I hope my opponent will screw up, to my advantage. But I have never laid down my cards and stated my pseudo-squeeze line, hoping a rushed opponent will not see that the squeeze isn't real and will concede the rest of the tricks. In my view, this is the moral equivalent of deliberately calling "eight" in a noisy room hoping it will be misheard as "ace". Neither ploy is illegal per se. But I still don't want such sharp practices in my game. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 22:08:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79C7xs01861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:07:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f79C7rt01848 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:07:53 +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, 9 Aug 2001 14:06:03 +0200 Message-ID: <00ab01c120cb$c1873c80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 14:06:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f79C7tt01852 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > David Stevenson writes > > >2 Do your Appeals Committees use L12C3 in top national competitions? > > Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales, Germany, Sweden, Ireland, > Australia > > >3 Do your Appeals Committees use L12C3 in other competitions? > > Yes: Ukraine, Netherlands, England, Wales, Germany, Sweden [*], > Ireland, Australia > > [*] Perhaps someone could confirm this? I can confirm that. In a side event in Skovde, an AC ruled 80% 4H making, 20% 4SX-1. I've seen it happen in other competitions too. 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 Aug 9 22:26:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79CQK206143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:26:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79CQCt06124 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 22:26:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.76.229] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15Uopz-0000Oy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:22:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c120ce$0627ada0$e54c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <004701c11d51$b7df3660$1c717ad5@pbncomputer> <005701c11fa8$8aba0c60$036e7ad5@pbncomputer> <003401c1201d$e5b3f0c0$dd6a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's error in Skovde Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:22:55 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > I do not expect the field to be happy with a Director who makes > errors. But the Law is clear: treat both sides as non-offending. So a > board with a total of more than 100% is potentially created every time a > Director makes a mistake when ruling on it. Indeed, which is why one wants to avoid the situation if at all possible. Here, the TD has failed to allow West to bid 4H when there was strong evidence for the fact that he was going to do this. But this error can be rectified by normal means - the TD rules EW +170; EW appeal; the AC either believes West (in which case the score is EW +420) or it does not (in which case the table result stands). Or, of course, the TD rules EW +420, in which case NS appeal. I really do not see whey L82C should be invoked to award both sides a favourable result, when there is a perfectly obvious rectification that will allow the board to be scored normally. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 23:02:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79D0Qq09505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:00:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79D0It09501 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:00:21 +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 15UpMz-0001HS-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:57:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:55:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is your PC infected? References: <001001c11748$33862cc0$2d11ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Anne Jones wrote: > >> I did the same Grattan - it was 127k. >> I have asked Olivier to send it again if it really was intended - I >> thought it might have had something to do with Tabiano. >> Problem is that I am now so so curious. > >If the message starts with "Hi, how are you, I'm sending this file in >order to have your advice", then DON'T open the attachment. It is a >virus. Delete the message. I decided to do so before reading the warning. I have so far deleted about thirty such emails. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 23:02:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79D14d09511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:01:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79D0xt09507 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:00:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.76.229] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15UpNX-0004G1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 13:57:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c120d2$df0ee1c0$e54c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <00ab01c120cb$c1873c80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:57:29 +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: > I can confirm that. In a side event in Skovde, an AC ruled 80% 4H making, 20% 4SX-1. I've seen it happen in other competitions too. This sounds ominous. Does this mean that someone bid 4S after a hesitation, and the AC decided that he would have bid it some of the time without the hesitation? If so, this practice is actively discouraged in England - either a bid is allowed having regard to the constraints of L16 and L73, or it is not. Of course, such rulings may be given for other, legitimate, reasons, which I hope was the case above. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 9 23:03:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79D1k409517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:01:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f79D1bt09513 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 23:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15UpOH-0003CB-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:58:22 +0100 Message-ID: <6zXAMLDQioc7Ewwh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:56:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is your PC infected? References: <002001c117fa$56496d00$07267bd5@dodona> <003701c1183f$2ef503a0$b23b3d42@cox.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003701c1183f$2ef503a0$b23b3d42@cox.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Kuchenbrod writes >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. The general advice that I have been given and follow is that if I receive an exe as an attachment I immediately write to the sender and ask him whether he meant to send me something. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 10 00:02:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79E1lw09594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:01:47 +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 f79E1ft09590 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:01:41 +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; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:59:53 +0200 Message-ID: <010b01c120db$a6e16300$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Burn" , "BLML" References: <00ab01c120cb$c1873c80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004301c120d2$df0ee1c0$e54c7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:00:29 +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 f79E1ht09591 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: BLML Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > Rik wrote: > > > I can confirm that. In a side event in Skovde, an AC ruled 80% 4H > making, 20% 4SX-1. I've seen it happen in other competitions too. > > This sounds ominous. Does this mean that someone bid 4S after a > hesitation, and the AC decided that he would have bid it some of the > time without the hesitation? If so, this practice is actively > discouraged in England - either a bid is allowed having regard to the > constraints of L16 and L73, or it is not. Of course, such rulings may be > given for other, legitimate, reasons, which I hope was the case above. > > David Burn > London, England > > It was a case where the AC ruled that had the NOS gotten the correct information, they would have bid 4H over 3S. In 80 % of the cases, this would have been passed out, in 20% of the cases the OS would have bid 4S, which would have been doubled by the NOS. 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 Fri Aug 10 00:23:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79EM2009618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:22:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79ELUt09614 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:21:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.26.196] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15UqdK-0002NQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:17:58 +0100 Message-ID: <003f01c120de$1838f8e0$c41a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <00ab01c120cb$c1873c80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004301c120d2$df0ee1c0$e54c7ad5@pbncomputer> <010b01c120db$a6e16300$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:17:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rik wrote: >It was a case where the AC ruled that had the NOS gotten the correct information, they would have bid 4H over 3S. In 80 % of the cases, this would have been passed out, in 20% of the cases the OS would have bid 4S, which would have been doubled by the NOS. That's perfectly OK, and a good example of a sensible use of L12C3. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 10 02:09:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79G8Zp09685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:08:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79G8Tt09681 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:08:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f79G5IF02414 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002501c120ec$ff394ac0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <008401c11d87$8696ba20$1c82b2c3@svk> <004301c12039$8623c380$1b82b2c3@svk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:03:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Sergey Kapustin writes > > >By the way, does anybody have "Black Book" for registration such cases? > > From time to time hands with some ethical situation involved are > submitted to the EBU L&EC. If there is seen to be any question in them > then the form will be kept. > The ACBL has a Player Memo form that can be filed out in regard to any suspicious actions committed by an opponent. There was a long discussion among the C&C as to whether the PM should be shown to its subject. Since some PMs contain some very inflammatory language, and originators perhaps require some privacy, Recorder Rich Colker prefers discussion with the subject without divulging all the contents of the PM. Seems reasonable. If additional PMs are filed against the same person, then of course there may be more action than a mere discussion with Rich. I'm sure that in that case there would be more extensive revelation of the PMs' contents. 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 Aug 10 02:27:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79GR1Q09705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:27:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79GQtt09699 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:26:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-161.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.161]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D171630A1 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:23:38 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Cue-bid over Precision Club Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 17:18:28 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >David Stevenson (Wed 08 Aug 2001 23:58) writes: > I cannot remember which thread but the question of ACBL alerting of 2C >over a Precision club was raised. The thread was 'MI?'. Mike Amos was seeking views on a key ruling which decided which team won the Final of this year's Garden Cities Trophy. Little interest was shown in the question which yielded, I think two answers. In true BLML style, however, It did produce about two dozen postings on the subject of ACBL alerting regulations, which were never relevant to the question asked. >>Gary Blaiss says: >>While adjustments may be few and far between regardless of the >>existence or non-existence of an Alert, an Alert should be given if the >>2C bid over an artificial, forcing one club opening is other than >>natural (offering to play -- or showing only clubs -- in clubs). So, now we know. NS in the original question, playing in Coventry UK, were entitled to assume in the absence of an alert that West's 2C bid showed clubs - just as they would have done if they had been in ACBL land! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 10 02:27:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79GR6B09709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:27:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79GQxt09704 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:27:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f79GNmF20590 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01c120ef$94cb2b60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <00ab01c120cb$c1873c80$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <004301c120d2$df0ee1c0$e54c7ad5@pbncomputer> <010b01c120db$a6e16300$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:23:06 -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: "Rik Terveen" > > From: David Burn > > > Rik wrote: > > > > > I can confirm that. In a side event in Skovde, an AC ruled 80% 4H > > making, 20% 4SX-1. I've seen it happen in other competitions too. > > > > This sounds ominous. Does this mean that someone bid 4S after a > > hesitation, and the AC decided that he would have bid it some of the > > time without the hesitation? If so, this practice is actively > > discouraged in England - either a bid is allowed having regard to the > > constraints of L16 and L73, or it is not. Of course, such rulings may be > > given for other, legitimate, reasons, which I hope was the case above. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > > It was a case where the AC ruled that had the NOS gotten the correct information, they would have bid 4H over 3S. In 80 % of the cases, this would have been passed out, in 20% of the cases the OS would have bid 4S, which would have been doubled by the NOS. > I don't see why L12C2 would not have sufficed, 4H making. Why such consideration for the OS? It greatly reduces the chances that MI will be punished, hence does little to discourage MI. And why shouldn't the NOS get the score they probably would have obtained? No wonder the ACBL rejects L12C3, if this is how it is used. Had the probabilities been 50-50, then I could see more justification for it, although I think 50-50 should be adjusted to something like 75-25 NOS-OS to give the NOS benefit of doubt, and the OS no benefit of doubt. If that is how the 80-20 ratio was determined, then I have no problem with it. 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 Aug 10 08:29:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79MOUU21498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:24:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f79MOPt21494 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:24:25 +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 IAA23518 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:28:28 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:11:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:16:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/08/2001 08:15:08 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] >You and I may be outraged, but if it is >within the law it is within the law. And >although we think an action improper we are >not entitled to impose our morality on >others except by a process of law exercised >within the jurisdiction of the court. [snip] 1. I support the Edgar Kaplan principle that if a Bridge Law is immoral, then the WBF should change that Bridge Law. 2. I support the Mahatma Gandhi principle that if a Bridge Law is immoral, then I am justified in civil disobedience of that Law. For example, if beginner opponents violate L16A, then I deliberately ignore their breach of the Laws. This means that I in turn have breached L16A2 and consequently L72B2. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 10 08:52:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79MnQv21533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:49:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f79MnMt21529 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:49:22 +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 IAA26152 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:53:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:36:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:41:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 10/08/2001 08:40:05 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [snip] >But I have never laid down my cards and stated my pseudo-squeeze line, >hoping a rushed opponent will not see that the squeeze isn't real and >will concede the rest of the tricks. In my view, this is the moral >equivalent of deliberately calling "eight" in a noisy room hoping it >will be misheard as "ace". Neither ploy is illegal per se. [snip] Surely a deliberate false claim is illegal under L72A2? Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 10 09:29:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f79NQMW21569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:26:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f79NQHt21565 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:26:17 +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 QAA02032; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:23:02 -0700 Message-Id: <200108092323.QAA02032@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:41:31 +1000." Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:23:03 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > [snip] > > >But I have never laid down my cards and stated my pseudo-squeeze line, > >hoping a rushed opponent will not see that the squeeze isn't real and > >will concede the rest of the tricks. In my view, this is the moral > >equivalent of deliberately calling "eight" in a noisy room hoping it > >will be misheard as "ace". Neither ploy is illegal per se. > > [snip] > > Surely a deliberate false claim is illegal under L72A2? Law 72A2 wouldn't apply, I believe. If a claim is acquiesced to (even a false one), "the board is scored as though the tricks claimed or conceded had been won or lost in play" (Law 69A)---so accepting the score for the tricks claimed cannot violate Law 72A2. Except that if you claimed the rest of the tricks while you knew the opponents still had the master trump, and accepted the score for this claim, this would violate L72A2 since the opponents "could not lose" that trick. But this doesn't apply to a trick that the opponents *could* lose though misdefense. Also, if you claimed "making 4" in 4H, and the opponents acquiesced and then wrote 450 on the score ticket, you would violate L72A2 if you knowingly accepted this score. Perhaps a deliberate bad claim violates some Law, but this isn't 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 Aug 10 20:50:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7AAnrV14137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:49:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7AAniH14117 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:49:46 +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 MAA05930; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:45:50 +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 MAA04614; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:46:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <006101c1218a$383fe700$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200108082000.QAA20918@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:50:07 +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: Steve Willner > There is no need to assert that the variation in tempo was intended > to enforce a pass from partner. All we need is that the relevant > "could have known" and "likely" conditions are met and also that > there was no genuine bridge problem to justify the pause. AG : very good ! Now we've got it, clearly stated. But the last part means that we can't use this way to adjust when there was indeed a problem, even if every expert would have solved it in a short time, and even if the hesitation was very long. That is, the mere fact that 'most players wouldn't have needed such a long time' isn't sufficient. If a player takes 20 seconds to pass his partner's 3S opening on a weak 4333 hand, adjust. If he takes 20 seconds to bid 4S over 3S on K - AKxxx - xx - KQxxx (an obvious 4S bid, isn't it ?), do not adjust. *you* might feel there was no problem, but *this player* may have got some problem. Perhaps partner's preempts are often made on Q10xxxxx and out, or on AQ10xxxx and an outside Ace, which means that either a pass or a slam try may be in order. Perhaps the player was a relative novice, and needed some time to persuade himself to raise on a singleton. There was a genuine problem *for this player*, this means that the 'could have known principle' may not apply. 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 Aug 10 22:23:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ACMvD18153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:22:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f7ACMpH18149 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:22:51 +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 f7ACJa196390 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010810081846.00b1ded0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:21:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... In-Reply-To: <200108092323.QAA02032@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:23 PM 8/9/01, Adam wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > >But I have never laid down my cards and stated my pseudo-squeeze line, > > >hoping a rushed opponent will not see that the squeeze isn't real and > > >will concede the rest of the tricks. In my view, this is the moral > > >equivalent of deliberately calling "eight" in a noisy room hoping it > > >will be misheard as "ace". Neither ploy is illegal per se. > > > > Surely a deliberate false claim is illegal under L72A2? > >Law 72A2 wouldn't apply, I believe. If a claim is acquiesced to (even >a false one), "the board is scored as though the tricks claimed or >conceded had been won or lost in play" (Law 69A)---so accepting the >score for the tricks claimed cannot violate Law 72A2. Except that if >you claimed the rest of the tricks while you knew the opponents still >had the master trump, and accepted the score for this claim, this >would violate L72A2 since the opponents "could not lose" that trick. >But this doesn't apply to a trick that the opponents *could* lose >though misdefense. Also, if you claimed "making 4" in 4H, and the >opponents acquiesced and then wrote 450 on the score ticket, you would >violate L72A2 if you knowingly accepted this score. > >Perhaps a deliberate bad claim violates some Law, but this isn't it. To accomplish the ploy in question, one does not claim all the tricks. One merely lays down their hand and states a line of play without suggesting how many tricks they will take, hoping this will induce the opponents to concede all of them. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 11 00:57:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7AEugI24444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:56:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7AEuZH24440 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:56:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-75-43.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.75.43] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15VDf4-0003C0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:53:19 +0100 Message-ID: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:52:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 09 August 2001 23:16 Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > [snip] > > >You and I may be outraged, but if it is > >within the law it is within the law. And > >although we think an action improper we are > >not entitled to impose our morality on > >others except by a process of law exercised > >within the jurisdiction of the court. > > [snip] > > 1. I support the Edgar Kaplan principle > that if a Bridge Law is immoral, then the > WBF should change that Bridge Law. > +=+ A view that I press impatiently, even beyond the point of irritating those who must wait for the decennary for every change.+=+ > > 2. I support the Mahatma Gandhi principle > that if a Bridge Law is immoral, then I am > justified in civil disobedience of that > Law. > +=+ The principle is accompanied by stoic acceptance of the penalties suffered in consequence of the disobedience. I am also reminded that in my formative years a man of God once taught me that I should not risk the wrath of the Saints by importuning two of them simultaneously. ~ 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 Aug 11 03:51:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7AHpHj24573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 03:51:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7AHpAH24569 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 03:51:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-170.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.170]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f7AHm5211775 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:48:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <01dc01c121c5$27e3d0c0$aa3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200107300037.UAA13571@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a201c118e4$155b4e40$8b3d1dc2@rabbit> <007501c11daa$cef6a140$5c53063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife 20 Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:51:37 +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 "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > > 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 > > > +=+ The regulations say two things: > (a) a pair using a HUM system may not > change its opening calls. > (b) after ntoification of opponents' defence > to their system a HUM pair may devise > a counter-defence, but in doing so may > not change any of the highly artificial > aspects of the HUM system. > In other respects they are subject to the > regulations generally governing system > changes. >From the appeal's writeup: Committee's note: No mention is made in the regulations that no change is allowed to any part of a HUM system. Such a change in a HUM is however clearly not allowed. I.e. the committee was of the opinion that substantial changes to a HUM system are not allowed, and I agree with the committee. Also the HUM pair would have needed the explicit approval of the system committee for any changes of their convention cards after a cutoff date: "1.6 Changes to Cards . no later than 25 May, 2001." An approval which they would not get. 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 Sat Aug 11 03:52:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7AHqbk24585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 03:52:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7AHqVH24581 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 03:52:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-170.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.170]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f7AHnR211969 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:49:27 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <01ea01c121c5$583dbec0$aa3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] Laws Bridge? Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:53:16 +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 Richard Hills wrote: > > I heard this story second-hand some time after > > the event, so I may have some details wrong. > > > > Player A made a call out of tempo, Opponent X > > called, and Player B considered what LAs > > remained lawfully open to him under L16A. > > > > Unfortunately for Player B, deciding what was > > and was not lawful meant that Player B's call > > was also out of tempo. Opponent Y assumed a > > different reason for Player B's break in > > tempo, and therefore Opponent Y chose an > > unsuccessful call. > > > > The TD and AC ruled that Player B had *no > > demonstrable bridge reason* for breaking > > tempo, under L73F2, and therefore adjusted > > the score. > > > > Questions: Is thinking about L16A thinking > > reasonably about bridge? Yes. The TD and AC got it wrong. Note that the same TD and AC might have happily ruled against B if B would have made his normal call in normal tempo when that call was demonstrably suggested over other LAs by the hesitation. 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 Sat Aug 11 04:51:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7AIpU724620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 04:51:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7AIpNH24616 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 04:51:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-145.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.145]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f7AImJ220093 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:48:19 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <025f01c121cd$91f5c560$aa3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010807082510.00aba970@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010809075247.00ab5110@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 20:51:40 +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 "Eric Landau" wrote: > At 02:39 PM 8/8/01, Thomas wrote: > > >Did you ever play a pseudo squeeze, Eric? > > Yes. In my view, this is the moral equivalent of ducking a trick when > fourth hand expects me to play the ace. In both cases, I hope my > opponent will screw up, to my advantage. > > But I have never laid down my cards and stated my pseudo-squeeze line, > hoping a rushed opponent will not see that the squeeze isn't real and > will concede the rest of the tricks. In my view, this is the moral > equivalent of deliberately calling "eight" in a noisy room hoping it > will be misheard as "ace". Neither ploy is illegal per se. But I > still don't want such sharp practices in my game. The player in question did not create the noise. According to Richard's original posting, the player claimed to have made a conscious effort to pronounce 'eight' clearly. Note that if he plays small from dummy, he won't win the trick, he has to play the eight or it will do him no good if RHO screws up. Would you refrain from playing a pseudo squeeze if the light in the room is poor? If the AC is bad and hence opponents' concentration might be lacking? If they had a bad board on the previous hand and thus their concentration might be lacking? 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 Sat Aug 11 09:37:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ANaLs24786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:36:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ANaFH24782 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:36:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA25799 for ; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:33:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA09920 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:32:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108102332.TAA09920@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: Steve Willner > > There is no need to assert that the variation in tempo was intended > > to enforce a pass from partner. All we need is that the relevant > > "could have known" and "likely" conditions are met and also that > > there was no genuine bridge problem to justify the pause. > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : very good ! Now we've got it, clearly stated. But the last part means > that we can't use this way to adjust when there was indeed a problem, even > if every expert would have solved it in a short time, I don't see why not. Of course you take into account the player's skills and bidding methods, as always in judgment decisions. The question to answer is whether the tempo break was out of line with the problem. If so, then adjust (if other conditions are met). As the law asks, was the player "particularly careful" or not? > ... *you* might feel there > was no problem, but *this player* may have got some problem. It's not a question of the player's subjective mental state. No doubt he _believed_ he had a problem. ("No doubt" may be too strong: David Burn suspects cheating, but call me an optimist.) The question is whether the player had a genuine bridge problem, all circumstances considered. L73F2, which is not directly applicable but flows from 73D1, uses the phrase "demonstrable bridge reason." While that phrase isn't explicit in L73D1, I think it aptly captures what we are looking for: not a subjective or personal reason, a demonstrable, objective one. > Perhaps > partner's preempts are often made on Q10xxxxx and out, or on AQ10xxxx and an > outside Ace, which means that either a pass or a slam try may be in order. Yes, the partnership bidding style is a proper thing to consider. > Perhaps the player was a relative novice, and needed some time to persuade > himself to raise on a singleton. There was a genuine problem *for this > player*, this means that the 'could have known principle' may not apply. We rule based on a player of equal skill, playing the partnership methods. Surely something like this is implied in every judgment decision. Novices are expected to take more time even for routine decisions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 11 17:27:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7B7Nw700654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:23:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7B7NmH00647 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-29.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.29]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f7B7Kh224147 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:20:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000501c12236$ac97ea60$1d3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> <3B6E3D0F.8BD03B7E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:23:05 +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 "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > > > S has passed the information that action will probably > > be better than non-action, because S has a good hand. > > S does indeed have a good hand. > > > > > North has received this information, > > > and altough he does not know > > > he has received it, he does indeed pass. > > > > N did bend over backwards and passed when both > > double and 3D are reasonable, too. > > This let to a worse result than if he would have doubled. > > > > I don't even believe that, but that's beside the problem. 3C X down four certainly scores more than 3C undoubled down four. Even if W runs to his 5 card S suit (and why should he?), 3SX is down two against good defense. One further point which has not been mentioned in this thread thus far is that we do not know whether 3D or X in the reopening seat would have had an artificial meaning. > > > Are we really powerless to stop this, simply because we > > > cannot prove that South did not do this on purpose ? Even > > > if we can find no acceptable reason why it took South one > > > minute to pass ? > > > > Hesitations are not against the law, only using UI > > from hesitations is an infraction. If you want to rule > > against N/S, you have to demonstrate that S passed the UI > > to N that he wanted N to pass rather than bid. > > > > And you don't think that is the case ? ONE MINUTE ? One minute is not long if you have a bridge problem. Then, there are those players like me who, when they notice that they already have hesitated, will then work everything out in detail. > > We have seen such hands in the past: > > some bidding 4H [hesitation] double > > with a trump stack when they were playing negative > > or transferable values doubles, > > and partner then passed based on the hesitation. > > The case under discussion is not such a hand. > > > > As I said time and again, I don't want to discuss the actual > case, just the principle. How would you rule your case > above ? In this case, I enquire N/S's system. Assuming the worst, consider the case where they play negative doubles in that situation, but thex expert N claims that "the hesitation forced him to pass the double", i.e. when there is stong evidence that the expert S deliberately hesitated to create the UI to have partner interprete a bid in a non-systematic meaning and make an anti-systemic pass. I will probably disqualify this N/S pair, and I will recommend to the national authorities to have them banned for at least six months. If they get caught exercising this stunt twice, they will be banned. Note that S does have a bridge problem here. Now consider the case where S hesitates a long time before doubling, and N then takes out the double because it is a take-out double and his hand does not warrant passing for penalties. Then there is no reason to rule against N/S. There is a huge difference between "hesitate then double for penalties" and "hesitate then pass". If a player hesitates, then negative doubles with a trump stack, his partner has nice UI to pass the double, and if partner then indeed passes the negative double which was a penalty double, we know that he used the UI to pass. If a player hesitates, then passes, his partner will have ambigous UI which suggests action over passing, but usually does not suggest doubling over other action, nor does the hesitation suggest passing over action. BTW, we had a few such cases in Germany. One of them took place at the national team championships. The contract was some NT contract, E had bid hearts, and W had supported hearts. E: HKQ9xx W: HT62 E let a H honor and West tanked for three minutes before playing the H2 (low encouraging). Declarer ducked, and E then switched to clubs, correctly interpreting the hesitation + the encouraging H2 as a suit preference signal. The general agreement back then was that E/W should have been disqualified. The AC chickened out and just adjusted the score and fined them a few VPs. 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 Sat Aug 11 17:27:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7B7O2b00655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:24:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7B7NmH00646 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 17:23:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-29.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.29]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f7B7Kf224144 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:20:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <000401c12236$ac226c40$1d3d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <000001c11da0$ba677600$36291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 07:56:40 +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: > Thomas Dehn writes > > >> If you are called at the end of the hand how do you rule? > > > >(1) Apparently the easy part. I decide that pass is an LA for > > East at this vulnerability. Adjusted to 1NT making whatever. > >(2) I first need to enquire S why she first alerted 2NT, but then > > passed. > > The problem with this hand is that I was not called back! You probably were not called back because S made the obvious 8 or more tricks in 2NT, i.e. N/S did not feel damaged. > Let us suppose, for the interesting legal point I was discussing with > one of the best Swedish TDs, that when you ask her, she says "I > originally thought it was for the minors, so I alerted. But then I > changed my mind, decided it was natural, and passed." I would probably rule that South had UI when she 'remembered' that 2NT was natural before she passed 2NT. I would still adjust to 1NT making whatever, as it is certainly likely that N/S would not have used UI if E had passed out 1NT ;-). However, there is a bunch of subleties to take into consideration: 1) Damage caused by N/S's infraction rather by E/W's infraction is subsequent damage, not consequent damage. 2) If N/S, by committing an infraction after E/W's infration, obtain a better score than "the best result which would have been likely without the infraction", N/S do not get to keep their good result, we still adjust for both sides. 3) If N/S, by committing an infraction after E/W's infration, obtain a *worse* score than "the best result which would have been likely without the infraction", we might rule that this is subsequent damage, and then N/S get to keep their bad score, whereas E/W's score is still adjusted. Example: without E/W's infraction, the best result likely would have been +150. After E/W's infraction, the normal result would still have been +150, but N/S committed an infraction which resulted in -50. E/W then get their well-deserved -150, but N/S keep their self-inflicted -50. 4) My mind boggles if I consider the case where "the best result likely" is +120, "the best result at all likely" is +150, the "normal" result without N/S's subsequent infraction is +130, but the actual table result after N/S's subsequent infraction was +170. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 12 03:37:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7BHXeH26601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 03:33:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7BHXXH26597 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 03:33:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaug67.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.199]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27053 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 13:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001701c1228b$3cfb8680$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 13:29:55 -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: "n y abhyankar" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:55 AM Subject: [BLML] Case for AC > > 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 > 2S 3H P 3NT > P P P > > The four hands were : > 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 > KQ8 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. > If declarer routinely makes plays that are difficult to hear, then declarer must be reminded of the word "clearly" in 46A. It is up to the TD to insure that players do not routinely make the game more difficult for their opponents (and partners). If the declarer does not learn to speak up (and there is no physical reason why he can't), procedural penalties are in order. > 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. > IMO the AC was correct. Play from Dummy is not complete until Dummy picks up the card named by Declarer, and faces it on the table (45B). Any action taken by N before Dummy completes play of the card is premature, and IMO should be at his own risk (there is a somewhat similar situation in another thread). If there is any doubt whatsoever in N's mind about what card has been named, all he has to do is wait for Dummy to finish his play, and that doubt will be resolved. > 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 > We know what the defender intended. However, that's not what he did at the table. Despite some confusion about this issue on the list, bridge scores tend to be determined by a player's actions, not his intentions (except where the action was clearly inadvertent). The question is whether the misplay by N was caused by unclear designation of the play by declarer, or by rapid play by N. Both are procedural errors. However, the proximal cause of the damage was the rapid play by N, as simply waiting for Dummy to complete his play would have resolved any ambiguity in the card designated. N played prematurely, in the gap between the designation of the card to be played and the actual play. Declarer got what he deserved. The defender played prior to his turn, and consequently misplayed. Why shouldn't declarer get a top when a defender misplays? > an irrational & outrageous defense got assigned to North for faulty > hearing & yes , haste. > The irrational defense did not get assigned to N. That is how he defended at the table The AC simply decided that since N had misdefended before Dummy had played, that he had to live with the result of his action. A procedural penalty against declarer would be in order if he has a habit of not designating his plays clearly. > Thanks and Best Regards > Yogesh > 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 Sun Aug 12 06:39:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7BKYdl26728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:34:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7BKYXH26724 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:34:34 +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 QAA14104 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21766 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108112031.QAA21766@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Some of the options are those of the sponsoring organisation anyway, Most of the options are for SO's, I think. The only two zonal options I can think of at the moment are L12C3 and whether defenders may ask each other about a possible revoke. Are there any others? Are there any zones other than Zone 2 that _do not_ use L12C3? We had a thread on defenders' revoke-asking awhile ago. I believe the outcome was that defenders are allowed to ask each other in Zones 2 and 7 and not allowed in Zones 1 or 3-6. Zone 8 is newly formed and apparently has not selected an option, but in practice defenders are being allowed to ask in South Africa but not elsewhere in Zone 8. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 12 06:55:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7BKqwC26773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:52:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7BKqqH26769 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 06:52:53 +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 QAA14281 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:49:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA21980 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 16:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108112049.QAA21980@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > In other words, do you adjust for an OS using as part of your > adjustment an infraction *by the other side*? This is an interesting question, all right. I'm not sure there is a clear answer. The Laws offer no explicit guidance on multiple infractions, as we have noticed before. Nevertheless, I wonder whether we can make progress by considering the second infraction to be "irrational, wild, or gambling" or at least the legal equivalent. If we do that, we will sometimes, but not always, deny redress for the first infraction. The standard example is NS use UI to bid a slam, which should go down, but EW revoke (an infraction!) to let it make. I believe the standard ruling is that EW keep their table score, but NS have their score adjusted to a game contract making 12 tricks. (There has been some disagreement on exactly what the ruling ought to be, but I _think_ the above is the consensus answer. Correction welcome.) In David's case, EW seem to have deserved their -120: they used UI to take out the NS 1NT, then defended 2NT horribly. So I don't see a problem with their score. NS "deserved" +90 after the first infraction, but as in the revoke case, I think the consensus is to give them the benefit of the opponents' horrible defense. Still, there is a strong case for adjusting the NS score to +90. If South had (as legally required) bid 3m, the opponents would not have had the chance to defend so badly. Wouldn't we have adjusted to +90 in that case? So I don't think we can give NS more than they would have gotten by bidding legally. That is, their infraction was the _direct_ cause of receiving +120 instead of +90. (I'm making assumptions about the bridge judgment in order to illustrate the legal points; of course the judgments may be wrong.) Another approach altogether is to try to figure out the matchpoints or IMPs won or lost by play and by the infractions, then subtract the ones gained by infractions from each side's score. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 12 11:39:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7C1Yt127587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:34:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7C1YnH27583 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:34:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7C1VWA23929 for ; Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <017201c122cd$51607300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200108112031.QAA21766@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:18:02 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > Some of the options are those of the sponsoring organisation > > anyway, > > Most of the options are for SO's, I think. The only two zonal > options I can think of at the moment are L12C3 and whether > defenders may ask each other about a possible revoke. Are > there any others? > L18F. ZAs may authorize different methods of making calls. L40D. Option to ban extra-light one-level openings, even if not conventional. L93B1. Option to establish different conditions of appeals for special contests. There are other items that are options of the sponsoring organization, not the ZAs. Question: if something is optional with an SO, does the ZA have a right to decide on the option for all SOs within its jurisdiction? The ACBL does just that, for a number of Laws that have SO options (see L16A1, L40E, L41A) 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 Aug 13 00:10:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7CE71s09821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:07:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin1.bigpond.com (juicer13.bigpond.com [139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7CE6uH09809 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GHYKNV00.IRR for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:09:31 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-251.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.251]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 8329/3602215); 13 Aug 2001 00:09:31 Message-ID: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 23:58:09 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: Yogesh Abhyankar wrote: >> Both the teams are of high level and experienced. >> Both Vul , South Dealer , auction proceeds as under : >> >> S W N E >> 2S 3H P 3NT >> P P P >> >> The four hands were : >> 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 >> KQ8 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, >>murmured 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 not 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 . >> >> 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 ' & ' committees' >> considered assessment of special situations" etc.etc. & >>hence N-S decided to appeal. >> >> Appeals committee dismissed the appeal after hearing >>both the parties. >> Hirsch wrote: >IMO the AC was correct. Play from Dummy is not complete >until Dummy picks up the card named by Declarer, and faces >it on the table (45B). Any action taken by N before Dummy >completes play of the card is premature, and IMO >should be at his own risk (there is a somewhat similar situation >in another thread).... I disagree about what Law 45B says. To quote Law 45B: "Play of Card from Dummy Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table..." i.e. "dummy picks up the card" AFTER "declarer plays a card". An action which comes AFTER another action is not part of the latter. This makes the ruling much less clear than Hirsch indicates - I have a lot of sympathy for NS, and I think the Laws may well be on NS's side, especially Law 46A which Hirsch mentions in another section of his post (which I have snipped). If I were on the AC, I would have asked NS about the exact circumstances of the other two cases of unclear designation. My tendency would have been to rule 3NT down 2 (if SJ was not unblocked at Trick 1) or down 3 (if SJ was unblocked). 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 Mon Aug 13 04:59:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7CIuSJ12054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 04:56:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7CIuMH12050 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 04:56:23 +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 OAA01474 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA04701 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 14:53:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108121853.OAA04701@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" Thanks for the list, Marv. (Too bad it exposes just how bad my memory is.) > L18F. ZAs may authorize different methods of making calls. This is a really odd one for a ZA law; one would think it would be up to SO's to choose the bidding method. > L40D. Option to ban extra-light one-level openings, even if not > conventional. I should have remembered this one (technically "regulate," not ban). The ACBL has delegated this authority to clubs. In ACBL tournaments, light openings are banned but not light overcalls. > L93B1. Option to establish different conditions of appeals for > special contests. Again one might have expected this to be an SO option, although I can see the point of leaving it to the ZA. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 13 06:46:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7CKgqa14559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:42:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7CKgkH14555 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 06:42:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f7CKdS708701 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200108121853.OAA04701@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200108121853.OAA04701@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:35:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Steve Willner writes: > In ACBL tournaments, >light openings are banned but not light overcalls. Eh? Are you saying I can't open 1C in third seat on: S 865 H 865 D A2 C KQT85 or 1H, playing Precision, on: S K4 H AQT86 D JT8652 ? If so, I disagree. And so, apparently, do Mike Lawrence (the first hand is from his book "The Complete Guide to Passed Hand Bidding") and Barry Rigal (the second hand is from "Precision in the 90s"), respectively. 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/AwUBO3bpgr2UW3au93vOEQLfRQCfR7IzGgGv2QbdKh1uBXrFEAdw+X0An0ao GWN3QGw9UMvSLOd0r/EEd+/q =xwP0 -----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 Aug 13 07:18:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7CLFWg14590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:15:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7CLFRH14586 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:15:27 +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 RAA03222 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA06153 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > Eh? Are you saying I can't open 1C in third seat on: I'm not saying it, but I think the ACBL is saying it. (Although as usual, there is more than one way to read the rule.) The text, from the GCC under "Disallowed," is: 6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 13 07:41:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7CLc9716414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:38:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7CLc3H16389 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:38:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7CLYg160840 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:34:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:37:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC In-Reply-To: <001701c1228b$3cfb8680$0200000a@davishi> References: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:29 PM 8/11/01, Hirsch wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "n y abhyankar" >IMO the AC was correct. Play from Dummy is not complete until Dummy >picks up >the card named by Declarer, and faces it on the table (45B). Any action >taken by N before Dummy completes play of the card is premature, and IMO >should be at his own risk (there is a somewhat similar situation in >another >thread). If there is any doubt whatsoever in N's mind about what card has >been named, all he has to do is wait for Dummy to finish his play, and >that >doubt will be resolved. > > > 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 > >We know what the defender intended. However, that's not what he did >at the >table. Despite some confusion about this issue on the list, bridge scores >tend to be determined by a player's actions, not his intentions (except >where the action was clearly inadvertent). The question is whether the >misplay by N was caused by unclear designation of the play by declarer, or >by rapid play by N. Both are procedural errors. However, the proximal >cause of the damage was the rapid play by N, as simply waiting for >Dummy to >complete his play would have resolved any ambiguity in the card >designated. >N played prematurely, in the gap between the designation of the card to be >played and the actual play. > >Declarer got what he deserved. The defender played prior to his turn, and >consequently misplayed. Why shouldn't declarer get a top when a defender >misplays? > > > an irrational & outrageous defense got assigned to North for faulty > > hearing & yes , haste. > >The irrational defense did not get assigned to N. That is how he defended >at the table The AC simply decided that since N had misdefended before >Dummy >had played, that he had to live with the result >of his action. Hirsch's argument is entirely sensible, and, in my opinion, correct. However, I feel compelled as an ACBL TD to recall the notorious "Oh s--t" case of a year or two ago, noting that it was reported in the ACBL bulletin as a decision which the reportage did not criticize or suggest to be in error, and which has thus become established case law. My own feelings on the case, which are the same as Hirsch's, notwithstanding, I submit that the ruling given by the AC in .in-land (India? Indonesia?) would properly have gone the other way in North America. If anything, North's intent here was far more apparent than declarer's in the "Oh s--t" case, and allowing him to "correct" his "inadvertant play" would clearly produce the "normal" ("equitable") result, so the precedent would clearly apply. My answer to Mr. Abhyankar, then, is that this is not an area of settled law, but depends on local practice and the policies of his NCBO. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 13 08:16:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7CMDAV23728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:13:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1 (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7CMD3H23695 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 08:13:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout1-1 (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f7CM8UA17891 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 18:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 18:04:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:12 PM -0400 8/12/01, willner@cfa.harvard.edu wrote: > 6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could > show less than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.) Um. Notice that the hands I posted both have more than 7 points. :-) Perhaps we have different definitions of "light". I would consider opening at the one level in SA on 9+-11 points "light", on 8 to a bad 9 "very light" and on less than 8 "extremely light". On that basis, "light" or even "very light" openings are not proscribed by this reg. Besides, there's a box on the CC to check for such openings - apparently that makes it legal. 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/AwUBO3b+p72UW3au93vOEQIcVgCcCmt/FvbtVZEkmIB3Es4+Ip/G7IoAn0hc /bx/yl4xlbPCEVccSfmAR74S =D8sX -----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 Aug 13 10:40:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7D0bMp26630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:37:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.106]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7D0bGH26619 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:37:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010813003353.DLCG12650.femail10.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:33:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010812202048.007e0330@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, 12 Aug 2001 20:20:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: References: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200108122112.RAA06153@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 06:04 PM 8/12/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >Perhaps we have different definitions of "light". I would consider >opening at the one level in SA on 9+-11 points "light", on 8 to a bad >9 "very light" and on less than 8 "extremely light". On that basis, >"light" or even "very light" openings are not proscribed by this reg. >Besides, there's a box on the CC to check for such openings - >apparently that makes it legal. While this is a separate point, the existence of a box on the ACBL CC does not mean that the ACBL considers the agreement legal. Some versions of the CC had a box for Lebensohl after a double of a 3-bid, which would be an insufficient bid. The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a place to descriube psychics even while banning any agreement to psyche. But the ACBL only has the right to ban natural initial actions if they are a king below average strength, so an 8-point opening must be allowed, and the ACBL is entirely proper to require a pre-alert or box on the CC for 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 Mon Aug 13 14:50:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7D4nee11829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:49:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7D4nYH11825 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7D4kFA22670 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <022601c123b0$9ee7eb60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010812202048.007e0330@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:25:21 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David J. Grabiner" > Ed Reppert wrote: > > >Perhaps we have different definitions of "light". I would consider > >opening at the one level in SA on 9+-11 points "light", on 8 to a bad > >9 "very light" and on less than 8 "extremely light". On that basis, > >"light" or even "very light" openings are not proscribed by this reg. > >Besides, there's a box on the CC to check for such openings - > >apparently that makes it legal. > > While this is a separate point, the existence of a box on the ACBL CC does > not mean that the ACBL considers the agreement legal. A previous thread concluded, I believe, that TDs will consider the CC as an official guide to legality, even though it really isn't. In this case, there is no doubt that Ed's two examples (both more than 7 HCP) of light openings are legal and his descriptions of them seem adequate to me. > The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a > place to descriube psychics even while banning any agreement to psyche. Disclosing the relative frequency of partnership psychs does not constitute an illegal agreement. A young pair recently disclosed at my table that they psych frequently, which they clarified as "we average two-thirds of a psych each per session." That was good disclosure, and perfectly legal. The boxes for disclosing psych frequency should be restored. As it is now players have no idea whether the opponents never psych, or psych rarely, or psych frequently, and that is not right. Those young opponents were exercising active ethics by pre-alerting their psych frequency even though the ACBL no longer requires it. Good for them! But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was afraid that their presence would encourage the practice of psyching, and they didn't want that. > > But the ACBL only has the right to ban natural initial actions if they are > a king below average strength, so an 8-point opening must be allowed, and > the ACBL is entirely proper to require a pre-alert or box on the CC for it. Right. 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 Aug 13 17:41:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7D7dfU29148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:39:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7D7dYH29144 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:39:36 +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, 13 Aug 2001 09:37:38 +0200 Message-ID: <008d01c123ca$ee845360$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Thomas Dehn" , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> <3B6E3D0F.8BD03B7E@village.uunet.be> <000501c12236$ac97ea60$1d3d1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:38:21 +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 f7D7dcH29145 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk *SNIP* > BTW, we had a few such cases in Germany. > One of them took place at the national team championships. > The contract was some NT contract, E had bid hearts, > and W had supported hearts. > > E: HKQ9xx > W: HT62 > > E let a H honor and West tanked for three minutes before > playing the H2 (low encouraging). Declarer ducked, and E then switched > to clubs, correctly interpreting the hesitation + the encouraging > H2 as a suit preference signal. > > The general agreement back then was that E/W should have > been disqualified. The AC chickened out and just > adjusted the score and fined them a few VPs. > > > Thomas > I remember a similar situation. Partner led the suit (say the HK, I don't remember) and dummy comes down with a couple of small cards. Dummy immediately plays one of them, declarer nodding. After a pause of about 10-20 seconds, I played the two and partner switched to clubs, setting the contract. This infuriated declarer. The setting: The hand was played in Sweden where 'everybody' plays a low card as encouraging. Unfortunately, my partner and I are not Swedish and low was discouraging. Clubs was the obvious shift. Eventhough I pointed at our carding methods on the CC (lying in front of him), this person still has it fixed in his mind that we are a couple of cheats. 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 Aug 13 20:28:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DAPw402543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:25:58 +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 f7DAPpH02523 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:25:52 +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 MAA19972; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:19:06 +0200 (MEST) 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 MAA23004; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:22:24 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <007b01c123e2$5f5b8920$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Rik Terveen" , "Thomas Dehn" , "BLML" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> <3B6E3D0F.8BD03B7E@village.uunet.be> <000501c12236$ac97ea60$1d3d1dc2@rabbit> <008d01c123ca$ee845360$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 12:26:10 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- > > I remember a similar situation. Partner led the suit (say the HK, I don't remember) and dummy comes down with a couple of small cards. Dummy immediately plays one of them, declarer nodding. After a pause of about 10-20 seconds, I played the two and partner switched to clubs, setting the contract. This infuriated declarer. > The setting: The hand was played in Sweden where 'everybody' plays a low card as encouraging. Unfortunately, my partner and I are not Swedish and low was discouraging. Clubs was the obvious shift. Eventhough I pointed at our carding methods on the CC (lying in front of him), this person still has it fixed in his mind that we are a couple of cheats. AG : I don't know what the regulations are in Sweden, but our Belgian jurisprudency is that, if the first card from dummy is played with undue haste, n°3 has an absolute right to pause a reasonable amount of time (your 10 to 20 seconds match this) for a general reflection on his line of defense, without prompting Laws 16A, 73D and 73F. This is the best defense against those who will deliberately play hastily from dummy (see last words from L73A2). You could have tried a counter-offensive on the basis of L45F. A PP to the declarer side is a reasonable ending. I had a similar case, excepted that it is just the opposite : partner played the 3 after some reflection ; he had the Ace. We play 'low encourages'. The vehement reaction from the declarer was brushed aside by the TD - and by his own captain. 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 Aug 13 21:18:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DBIL906560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:18:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7DBIEH06556 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:18:15 +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, 13 Aug 2001 13:16:18 +0200 Message-ID: <013301c123e9$7a7c4080$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:17:01 +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 f7DBIHH06557 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Rik ter Veen To: Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? ----- Original Message ----- From: Alain Gottcheiner To: Rik Terveen ; Thomas Dehn ; BLML Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? ----- Original Message ----- > > I remember a similar situation. Partner led the suit (say the HK, I don't remember) and dummy comes down with a couple of small cards. Dummy immediately plays one of them, declarer nodding. After a pause of about 10-20 seconds, I played the two and partner switched to clubs, setting the contract. This infuriated declarer. > The setting: The hand was played in Sweden where 'everybody' plays a low card as encouraging. Unfortunately, my partner and I are not Swedish and low was discouraging. Clubs was the obvious shift. Eventhough I pointed at our carding methods on the CC (lying in front of him), this person still has it fixed in his mind that we are a couple of cheats. AG : I don't know what the regulations are in Sweden, but our Belgian jurisprudency is that, if the first card from dummy is played with undue haste, n°3 has an absolute right to pause a reasonable amount of time (your 10 to 20 seconds match this) for a general reflection on his line of defense, without prompting Laws 16A, 73D and 73F. This is the best defense against those who will deliberately play hastily from dummy (see last words from L73A2). You could have tried a counter-offensive on the basis of L45F. A PP to the declarer side is a reasonable ending. You're obviously right. But would that have reduced this persons idea of us being cheats or would it have given him the impression that 'cheats get away with murder here and the victim is being punished'? Of course, I offered to call the director if he thought that something was wrong. (I wouldn't have mentioned L45F, it would only have aggrevated the situation.) He declined, and at the time I thought that would be the end of it. Sometimes I am wrong. I had a similar case, excepted that it is just the opposite : partner played the 3 after some reflection ; he had the Ace. We play 'low encourages'. The vehement reaction from the declarer was brushed aside by the TD - and by his own captain. Good to hear that. Best regards, Alain. 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 Aug 14 00:55:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DEsxv27967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:54:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7DEsrH27963 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:54:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA17397; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:51:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200108131451.HAA17397@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Aug 2001 17:37:06 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:51:23 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I submit that the ruling given by the AC in .in-land > (India? Indonesia?) FWIW: IN is the country code for India. ID is Indonesia. -- 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 Aug 14 06:41:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DKeVB15558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:40:32 +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-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 f7DKeLH15554 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:40:22 +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 f7DKaoa59997 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:36:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010813163651.00b1ce60@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, 13 Aug 2001 16:39:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Personal to Michael Farebrother Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael, your farebrother.cx e-mail address seems to have gone defunct. If you see this, let me know how I can reach you. /eric Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 14 09:28:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DNS4v04687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:28:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7DNRwH04683 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-38-249.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.38.249] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15WR4U-000KIo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:24:35 +0100 Message-ID: <006601c1244f$65d10ce0$f9267bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:20:27 +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, August 12, 2001 10:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > The text, from the GCC under "Disallowed," is: > 6. Opening one bids which by partnership > agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not > applicable to a psych.) > +=+ This does show how completely knotted we are when we look at law and regulation about psychic calls. It could be thought to suggest that we can psyche by partnership agreement. A psychic call is a call that grossly misstates honour strength or suit length - by reference to its agreed meaning as announced by the partnership. If a partnership has an agreement that their calls may be made on fewer than 8 HCP it is part of their system and susceptible to regulation as such. ~ 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 Aug 14 09:52:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DNqDQ04727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:52:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7DNq4H04719 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:52:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-106.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.106]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D44F63070 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:48:42 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:43:26 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Session 2 - Board 6 - EW Game, Dealer East: K 10 9 7 J 10 6 2 A J A K 9 A Q 8 A K 8 4 3 Q 8 5 3 Q With EW silent throughout the bidding was 1H - 1S - 3D - 4H - 4S(A) - 5C(A) - 4N/5N* - 6H end. *Immediately the 4N was placed on the table, South said "Oops" and smoothly substituted 5N. West, on lead, was told that 4S and 5C were first round controls and that 5N was "a sort of Blackwood". After the lead was faced and dummy exposed, declarer invited EW to "reserve their rights" as her 4N bid was *not* a mechanical error. The TD was called who required the hand to be played: 6H=. The TD returned to rule no adjustment, as by not calling the director immediately that the 4N bid was changed, EW had forfeited the right to penalise (L11A). Now this appears reasonable, but it raises various important questions. Mechanical bidding errors occur all the time. Mostly they are obvious, corrected with a "sorry" and, unless there is any suggestion of a "change of mind" the players just get on with the game. It would not be practical to treat every such case as an irregularity requiring that the TD be called. If this is accepted, what have EW done wrong here? At this level, players are expected to be familiar with the rules. If South knew that her 4N was not a mechanical error, surely she should have said so and called the TD herself? By correcting it immediately with an "oops" (or an equivalent expression), is she not in effect claiming "That was a mechanical error"? In this case, if the TD had been called after the 4N/5N bid, and South had been allowed to "select her final call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been stated"**, she would probably have selected 6H, in which case EW have not been damaged. **Phrase taken from the 1987 L27B - it was removed from the 1997 Laws, does it still apply in some other guise? 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 Aug 14 09:52:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7DNqD104728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:52:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7DNq5H04720 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:52:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-106.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.106]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D580631C4 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:48:44 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:43:28 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Session 2 - Board 24 - Love All, Dealer West: Q 9 8 5 8 4 8 2 J 10 9 6 3 7 4 A K J 10 J 9 6 3 A K 7 5 2 A K 10 9 5 4 Q J 7 4 A 6 3 2 Q 10 6 3 K Q 8 7 5 2 West in 7H wins the opening club lead and plays HA, noting the drop of H10. She then cashes her top spades, crosses to dummy with a spade ruff and leads HJ looking for a reaction. North now takes about 15 seconds to play the H8. Declarer, not unreasonably, plays low and the director is called when South produces the HQ. North tells the TD that she did not see the HJ initially because her view of it was obscured by her bidding box. The TD takes details and returns subsequently to say that he was satisfied that North's hesitation was inadvertant and that therefore the result stands as played, 7H-1. The implications are that the TD was satisfied (1) that North did not hear declarer call for the HJ, (2) that North did not see dummy move the HJ into the played position and (3) that it was then so placed that her view of it was restricted. This suggests a singular lapse in concentration by North at a critical point in the play, which IMO makes this a remarkable judgment call by the TD. Putting that aside though, the fact remains that, however inadvertant the tank by RHO may have been, the effect is to ensure that declarer, who would probably have played for the drop, will now never get it right. Are we really saying that as long as North convinces the TD of her good intentions, then EW have no redress? 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 Aug 14 16:55:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7E6s9m03703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:54:09 +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 f7E6s1H03680 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:54:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA12561; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:50:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 14 08:49:02 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 <01K749M2MBIW000S2E@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:49:49 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:50:02 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:49:48 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8FD@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 "And diff'ring judgments serve but to declare > That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where." > ~ Cowper > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:12 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > > > The text, from the GCC under "Disallowed," is: > > 6. Opening one bids which by partnership > > agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not > > applicable to a psych.) > > > +=+ This does show how completely knotted we > are when we look at law and regulation about > psychic calls. It could be thought to suggest > that we can psyche by partnership agreement. > A psychic call is a call that grossly misstates > honour strength or suit length - by reference > to its agreed meaning as announced by the > partnership. If a partnership has an agreement > that their calls may be made on fewer than > 8 HCP it is part of their system and susceptible > to regulation as such. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > There is another possible explanation for this remark here, which I am willing to accept: it not being applicable to a psyche because that is not a partnership agreement. Hurray for GCC in that case (whatever it means). ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 14 17:40:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7E7eDd10770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:40:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7E7e6H10750 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:40:07 +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, 14 Aug 2001 09:38:07 +0200 Message-ID: <003501c12494$2b43ade0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:38:53 +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 f7E7e8H10755 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi! This seems to be a classic 73F2: '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). ' To me not paying attention to what happens at the table is not a bridge reason. And North obviously 'could have known'. I would immediately adjust the score to 7H making, and I would not expect an appeal. Greetings, Rik P.S. The above doesn't mean that I don't believe North story. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 1:43 AM Subject: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Session 2 - Board 24 - Love All, Dealer West: > > Q 9 8 5 > 8 4 > 8 2 > J 10 9 6 3 > > 7 4 A K J 10 > J 9 6 3 A K 7 5 2 > A K 10 9 5 4 Q J 7 > 4 A > > 6 3 2 > Q 10 > 6 3 > K Q 8 7 5 2 > > West in 7H wins the opening club lead and plays HA, noting the drop of H10. > She then cashes her top spades, crosses to dummy with a spade ruff and leads > HJ looking for a reaction. > North now takes about 15 seconds to play the H8. > Declarer, not unreasonably, plays low and the director is called when South > produces the HQ. > North tells the TD that she did not see the HJ initially because her view of > it was obscured by her bidding box. > The TD takes details and returns subsequently to say that he was satisfied > that North's hesitation was inadvertant and that therefore the result stands > as played, 7H-1. > > The implications are that the TD was satisfied (1) that North did not hear > declarer call for the HJ, (2) that North did not see dummy move the HJ into > the played position and (3) that it was then so placed that her view of it > was restricted. This suggests a singular lapse in concentration by North at > a critical point in the play, which IMO makes this a remarkable judgment > call by the TD. > > Putting that aside though, the fact remains that, however inadvertant the > tank by RHO may have been, the effect is to ensure that declarer, who would > probably have played for the drop, will now never get it right. > > Are we really saying that as long as North convinces the TD of her good > intentions, then EW have no redress? > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 14 17:49:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7E7niZ11871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:49:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7E7ncH11860 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-39-186.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.39.186] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15WYtx-0006fM-00; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:46:14 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c12495$7aa5d560$c946063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:47:26 +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: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 12:43 AM Subject: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Session 2 - Board 24 - Love All, Dealer West: > ------------ \x/ -------------- > > West in 7H wins the opening club lead and plays HA, > noting the drop of H10. > She then cashes her top spades, crosses to dummy > with a spade ruff and leads HJ looking for a reaction. > North now takes about 15 seconds to play the H8. ------------ \x/ .............. > Are we really saying that as long as North convinces > the TD of her good intentions, then EW have no > redress? > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > +=+ If North did nothing to indicate she had no reason to think I could have risked a deposit on an appeal. There is such a thing as suddenly waking up to the fact that a card has been led and apologising I might not get redress if the AC thought I could not be so naive (possibly not expressed in those words exactly), or that I should have established the fact of the hesitation before I played on, or that I knew well enough that North had not seen the lead. ~ 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 Aug 14 18:26:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7E8QC213968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:26:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7E8Q2H13947 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7E8Meg23448 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:22:40 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <006601c1244f$65d10ce0$f9267bd5@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ This does show how completely knotted we > are when we look at law and regulation about > psychic calls. As Ton says a reminder that a restriction on agreements can't apply to psyches is reasonable. A better example of how ridiculous we are getting comes from a Brighton ruling. The auction (NS vul, EW nvul) goes something like (I may have this rotated): N E S W 2C 2S 3D 3H 2C is strong and 3D shows values. Apparently we are playing in a kindergarten and can rule a red psyche if the 3H turns out to be based on, shock horror, spades rather than hearts. Honestly folks if we are going to do this in what is supposedly a top quality event we may as well just admit that psyches are effectively illegal because they make things too difficult for "honest" players. FWIW East, with 5-5 in the majors chose to pass the subsequent 4C in the hope that they played there and then passed 5C because he feared pushing them to a making six - both perfectly normal choices even if it hasn't occurred to you that 3H may be psychic. EW were playing duplicate together for the second or third time only. 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 Aug 14 18:26:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7E8QDn13970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:26:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7E8Q2H13948 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7E8Mex23456 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:22:41 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 09:22 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs 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: Another ruling - same hand > Session 2 - Board 6 - EW Game, Dealer East: > > K 10 9 7 > J 10 6 2 > A J > A K 9 > > A Q 8 > A K 8 4 3 > Q 8 5 3 > Q S N 1H 2NT* 3D 4H** 4N*** Blackwood to 6H *Not alerted because she wasn't sure if they were playing Baron **On a relative minimum when 4H was, by agreement, stronger than 3H ***"Once I realised he had a 16 count". A ruling is requested and TD returns to the table and says "after consultation we don't think South had any UI...." - well duh! I didn't think South had any UI either. I did think it was entirely possible that without the UI (failure to alert) that North had the bidding may well have gone: 1H 2NT 3D 3H 4H (This pair didn't strike me as one which would look for slam on a combined 28 count) I wasn't exactly filled with confidence that Max had had my real concern made clear, let alone considered its validity. I didn't think it worth appealing since we were already 19-1 in the match (not that the TD informed me of my right to appeal anyway). 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 Aug 15 03:36:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7EHZ0M28688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:35:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7EHYsH28684 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:34:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-72-152.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.72.152] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Wi2L-000L63-00; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:31:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c124e6$f7b07820$9848063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:50:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 12 August 2001 22:37 Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > At 01:29 PM 8/11/01, Hirsch wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "n y abhyankar" > > > IMO the AC was correct. Play from Dummy is > > not complete until Dummy picks up the card > > named by Declarer, and faces it on the table > > (45B). > +=+ My law book says differently. It says the card is played by declarer naming the card. It says that *after* that Dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. ~ 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 Aug 15 04:47:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7EIkcZ05205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 04:46:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7EIkVH05201 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 04:46:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-59-251.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.59.251] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Wj9e-000Kmy-00; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:43:06 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c124f0$f9730420$6d2b7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8FD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:36:12 +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 5.00.2314.1300 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' ; Sent: 14 August 2001 07:49 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > Grattan Endicott > "And diff'ring judgments serve but to declare > > That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where." > > ~ Cowper > > + + + + > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:12 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > > > > > > The text, from the GCC under "Disallowed," is: > > > 6. Opening one bids which by partnership > > > agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not > > > applicable to a psych.) --------------------- \x/ --------------------- > > > > > > > There is another possible explanation for this > remark here, which I am willing to accept: it not > being applicable to a psyche because that is not > a partnership agreement. Hurray for GCC in that >case (whatever it means). > > ton > -- +=+ Could be. Fuzzily expressed, though. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 15 06:15:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7EKExR09690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7EKErH09686 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7EKBVP22716 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001801c124fd$3e232120$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8FD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <003c01c124f0$f9730420$6d2b7bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 13:09:04 -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 From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." > > > > > > > The text, from the GCC under "Disallowed," is: > > > > 6. Opening one bids which by partnership > > > > agreement could show less than 8 HCP. (Not > > > > applicable to a psych.) > --------------------- \x/ --------------------- > > There is another possible explanation for this > > remark here, which I am willing to accept: it not > > being applicable to a psyche because that is not > > a partnership agreement. Hurray for GCC in that > > case (whatever it means). > > > > ton > > -- > +=+ Could be. Fuzzily expressed, though. ~ G ~ +=+ > Why look for subtleties? All this ever meant to me was that psychs cannot be barred based on their likely 0-7 HCP strength. We know that partners will occasionally psych with hands within this range, so that is a sort of partnership agreement. It is not a *special* partnership agreement, but one that comes from general knowledge and experience (L75C). With all this in mind, item 6. is clear enough for me, albeit a little fuzzy. As with the Laws, the writers of the General Convention Chart are not wordsmiths, and we must grant them a little leeway when reading them. 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 Aug 15 06:40:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7EKdra09707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:39:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7EKdlH09703 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:39:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-101-86.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.101.86] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15WkvF-0007AZ-00; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:36:22 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c12501$11a36340$5665063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:36:52 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > Apparently we are playing in a > kindergarten and can rule a red psyche if the 3H > turns out to be based on, shock horror, spades > rather than hearts. Honestly folks if we are going > to do this in what is supposedly a top quality > event we may as well just admit that psyches > are effectively illegal because they make things > too difficult for "honest" players. > +=+ There is insufficient in this anecdotal account to provide the basis for comment. We need to be privy to the Director's account of the matter if we are to form any kind of view. What I think is apparent is that the Directors who consulted were of the opinion that there was a partnership understanding; since they will have been very experienced Directors we are entitled to believe you have less than the full facts. As it was adjudged a red psyche it will reach the L & E and we may learn more. ~ 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 Aug 15 06:40:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7EKeXW09719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:40:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7EKeRH09715 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:40:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauh3a.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.68.106]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21239 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:37:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002801c12500$cf3d18c0$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@127.0.0.1> <000d01c124e6$f7b07820$9848063e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:36:33 -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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > > > > At 01:29 PM 8/11/01, Hirsch wrote: > > > > > IMO the AC was correct. Play from Dummy is > > > not complete until Dummy picks up the card > > > named by Declarer, and faces it on the table > > > (45B). > > > +=+ My law book says differently. It says the card > is played by declarer naming the card. It says > that *after* that Dummy picks up the card and > faces it on the table. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Mine also says that "In playing from Dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself". This seems to suggest that although facing the card occurs after the designation, it is still part of playing the card. Does the alternative interpretation mean that Dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table during RHO's turn to play? I hope there was purpose to placing both the naming of the card and facing it on the table in the section of the Laws labeled "Play of Card from Dummy". This suggests to me that Dummy faces the named card before RHO plays to the trick. This would lead to an orderly sequence of events, in which all cards played up to that point are faced prior to the next player's turn. In the case of Dummy's play, this sequence allows correction of unclear designation to be made before RHO plays to the trick, which IMO is a good thing. It's hard to argue that your play was based on unclear designation of the card by declarer when the card is sitting face up in front of you. (Declarers with a speech impediment, or who do not speak the native language of the country in which they are playing, could breathe a sigh of relief.) Further, there is a certain amount of rudeness, not to mention the possibility of UI, in rapidly facing a card as soon as Declarer has spoken, before Dummy has had a chance to move. I can see no downside to asking RHO to wait until Dummy has faced his card before playing. Since declarer is allowed to face the card himself, even the case where Dummy has a beer in one hand and a sandwich in the other is covered. (Exception could be made if Dummy has a physical impairment that prevents facing the card in a timely manner.) 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 Aug 15 09:06:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7EN5WA17325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:05:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7EN5QH17321 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:05:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7EN23Z23943 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:02:03 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:02 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <001a01c12501$11a36340$5665063e@dodona> > +=+ There is insufficient in this anecdotal account > to provide the basis for comment. We need to be > privy to the Director's account of the matter if we > are to form any kind of view. Grattan you entirely miss the point. When a pair is non-vulnerable against vulnerable, the other side has shown considerable balance of strength, partner has bid and you have support it is an obvious psyche opportunity. You could put any 3 rubber-bridge playing strangers around the table with the psycher and all of them would understand enough of the basics of the game to regard the bid with suspicion. No partnership understandings, no agreements, just plain common sense. > What I think is > apparent is that the Directors who consulted > were of the opinion that there was a partnership > understanding; Not just a partnership understanding but a *special* one. One in some way related to the partnership rather than common bridge knowledge. If our attitude to the opponents is "poor lambs we must protect them" instead of "do grow up, of course its likely to be a psyche" then the psyche is effectively dead. (Perhaps "Psyching is permitted but if you get a good score we will award 60/30" is the way duplicate players would like to go.) If you need more than anecdotal evidence to identify such obvious positions you really should get back at the table more often - however I will try and get the exact hands. > since they will have been very > experienced Directors we are entitled to believe > you have less than the full facts. What scares me more is thought that the directors might actually be right in that psyches have already been eliminated so effectively that even the sort of position above is no longer "obviously suspect". > As it was adjudged > a red psyche it will reach the L & E and we may > learn more. I think our own DWS may have been on the AC so he may be able to provide something before then. 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 Aug 15 11:00:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7F104617856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:00:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7F0xvH17848 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f7F0uUm01178 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8FD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8FD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:54:22 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >There is another possible explanation for this remark here, which I am >willing to accept: it not being applicable to a psyche because that is not >a partnership agreement. >Hurray for GCC in that case (whatever it means). GCC stands for General Convention Chart - the chart of which conventions are most widely approved by the ACBL. Equivalent to the EBU's level 2, I think, or maybe level 3. I suspect (but do not know) that the statement was included out of fear that some TDs might rule a psyche illegal if it had less than 8 points. 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/AwUBO3nIw72UW3au93vOEQJHvgCdHJcbJb2alZdAIZduZP4Y1+/ntbMAn1ay 8GF4cyFFRCj4lglIDAYbJD6s =Nvqx -----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 Aug 15 17:31:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7F7Tht27661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:29:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7F7TaH27657 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:29:37 +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, 15 Aug 2001 09:27:34 +0200 Message-ID: <002801c1255b$dce60bc0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:28:19 +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 f7F7TdH27658 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 1:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors *SNIP* > Not just a partnership understanding but a *special* one. One in some way > related to the partnership rather than common bridge knowledge. If our > attitude to the opponents is "poor lambs we must protect them" instead of > "do grow up, of course its likely to be a psyche" then the psyche is > effectively dead. (Perhaps "Psyching is permitted but if you get a good > score we will award 60/30" is the way duplicate players would like to go.) > IMHO, as soon as a bid is 'likely to be a psych', it is not a psych anymore but part of a system. A psych should belong to the category "Of course, there is always a possibility that it is a psych, but I don't have any reason (yet) to assume it is." In other words, psyching is permitted, but the 3H bid was not a psych since it was not even likely that it did show hearts (by partnership understanding or by 'common sense'). And one has to keep in mind that what is common sense to one player, may be horrible bridge to another. 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 Aug 15 19:41:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7F9fKO15176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:41:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7F9fDH15162 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:41:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7F9bok22839 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:37:50 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:37 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <002801c1255b$dce60bc0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Rik wrote: > IMHO, as soon as a bid is 'likely to be a psych', it is not a psych > anymore but part of a system. A psych should belong to the category "Of > course, there is always a possibility that it is a psych, but I don't > have any reason (yet) to assume it is." Realistically one might expect a psyche on around one hand in 20 in decent company. But there are known positions where psyches are much more likely (eg 1H-x-1S). In other positions (eg vul vs not, and partner has shown strength) a psyche is far less likely. I'd put the figure for the actual case at around 1 in 5 - high enough that opponents can be expected to be aware of the possibilities. > In other words, psyching is permitted, but the 3H bid was not a psych > since it was not even likely that it did show hearts (by partnership > understanding or by 'common sense'). A 1 in 5 chance that it might be a psyche still leaves a 4 in 5 chance that it does indeed show hearts - hardly "not even likely that it did show hearts". I have read L40 many times and cannot interpret it any other way than: A player may make any call or play, including those based on a special partnership understanding, provided that either: a) an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning Or b) his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation In the top half of the field in premier national event I would expect a) to go without saying in this case. In EBU-land b) is fairly meaningless here since the alerting regulation is merely "alert any calls that may have an unexpected meaning" which takes you back to a). Try reading law 40A without L40B to put it in context. A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. The bidding in experienced partnership goes: 1C - 1S 3S - 4D Now 4D may, or may not be first round control, it may or may not deny first/second round club control - but one thing is almost certain and that is that this information is part of a partnership agreement and has not been the subject of prior announcement. It is obviously not made legal by L40a. Indeed very few bids after the first one in the auction are. That is why we also have L40b - which is the real test of when calls are/are not permitted. 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 Aug 15 21:35:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FBYmf24433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:34:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.bmc.uu.se (hermes.bmc.uu.se [130.238.39.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FBYeH24408 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:34:41 +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; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:32:36 +0200 Message-ID: <006801c1257e$17e25360$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:33:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f7FBYhH24418 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > In-Reply-To: <002801c1255b$dce60bc0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > Rik wrote: > > > IMHO, as soon as a bid is 'likely to be a psych', it is not a psych > > anymore but part of a system. A psych should belong to the category "Of > > course, there is always a possibility that it is a psych, but I don't > > have any reason (yet) to assume it is." > > Realistically one might expect a psyche on around one hand in 20 in decent > company. But there are known positions where psyches are much more likely > (eg 1H-x-1S). In other positions (eg vul vs not, and partner has shown > strength) a psyche is far less likely. I'd put the figure for the actual > case at around 1 in 5 - high enough that opponents can be expected to be > aware of the possibilities. > > > In other words, psyching is permitted, but the 3H bid was not a psych > > since it was not even likely that it did show hearts (by partnership > > understanding or by 'common sense'). > > A 1 in 5 chance that it might be a psyche still leaves a 4 in 5 chance > that it does indeed show hearts - hardly "not even likely that it did show > hearts". Perhaps I misinterpreted your "likely to be a psych" as over 50%. However, if you say that around 1 in 5 would be a psych in a regular partnership, I would regard it as a multi bid, based on an implicit partnership understanding. The bid requires an alert. To suggest that opponents should suspect a psych by common sense without any knowledge about the partnership doesn't make sense when the overwhelming majority of bridge opponents wouldn't even consider psyching there. As a numerical aside, here in Sweden we have to alert 1C and 1D openings in a five card major system. 1C is a three card suit in 1 in 7 cases, 1D in 1 in 30. With the psyching tendencies that you are talking about (1 in 5 and 1 in 20) one would have to alert every bid made, perhaps except when vulnerable against not. *SNIP* Just a clarifying question: Did you mean to say that in the UK, in a decent level tournament one sees a psych in one hand in twenty or did I misunderstand something? In the eight years that I've played (in the USA, The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden), there have been a total of 5 psychs while I was playing (2 by me, 1 by partner and 2 by the opponents). I am sure that I have played a lot more than 100 hands. 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 Aug 15 22:31:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FCVRj28895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:31:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FCVLH28891 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:31:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7FCRvb24900 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:27:57 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:27 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <006801c1257e$17e25360$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Rik wrote: > Perhaps I misinterpreted your "likely to be a psych" as over 50%. > However, if you say that around 1 in 5 would be a psych in a regular > partnership Nothing to do with a regular partnership (the Brighton one wasn't) - all to do with the quality of players. 1 in 5 is around what I would expect if you plonked me down at the table with 3 decent players at random from around the world. This is derived from my assumption/experience that decent players will psyche around 1 hand in 20 (maybe 1/25) on average. If your frequency of psyche expectation is significantly less than this I start to believe the psyche is indeed already well on the way to extinction. Please note that the EBU does not provide any disclosure mechanisms for psychic frequency. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 15 22:39:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FCcm528920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:38:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FCciH28916 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:38:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.57]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GI40KU00.BX6 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:41:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-185.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.185]) by mail2.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 3/501050); 15 Aug 2001 22:36:13 Message-ID: <004f01c12585$fa114b40$b9d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:29:49 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows wrote: >EW Game, Dealer East: > > K 10 9 7 > J 10 6 2 > A J > A K 9 > > A Q 8 > A K 8 4 3 > Q 8 5 3 > Q > >With EW silent throughout the bidding was >1H - 1S - 3D - 4H - 4S(A) - 5C(A) - 4N/5N* - 6H end. >*Immediately the 4N was placed on the table, South said >"Oops" and smoothly substituted 5N. > >West, on lead, was told that 4S and 5C were first round controls >and that 5N was "a sort of Blackwood". > >After the lead was faced and dummy exposed, declarer >invited EW to "reserve their rights" as her 4N bid was *not* >a mechanical error. The TD was called who required the >hand to be played: 6H=. > >The TD returned to rule no adjustment, as by not calling the >director immediately that the 4N bid was changed, EW had >forfeited the right to penalise (L11A). This seems to me to be an incomplete and therefore inadequate Director's ruling, as long as you have quoted it correctly. The Director may only rule this way "when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty" (= second sentence of Law 11A). For his ruling to be complete, surely the Director should have explained how this requirement was met, before making the ruling. The quoted words were deliberately added to Law 11A some time in the last 20 years. IMO Law 11A is overused and I sometimes wonder how many Directors bother to read Law 11A in full. >Now this appears reasonable, but it raises various important >questions. > >Mechanical bidding errors occur all the time. Mostly they are >obvious, corrected with a "sorry" and, unless there is any >suggestion of a "change of mind" the players just get on with >the game. It would not be practical to treat every such case >as an irregularity requiring that the TD be called. >If this is accepted, what have EW done wrong here? >At this level, players are expected to be familiar with the rules. >If South knew that her 4N was not a mechanical error, surely she >should have said so and called the TD >herself? By correcting it immediately with an "oops" (or an >equivalent expression), is she not in effect claiming "That was >a mechanical error"? I think you are making good points. One is only meant to call the Director when attention has been drawn to the irregularity. The "oops" made it seem clear to the opponents that no penalisable irregularity (OK, not the same thing as an "irregularity, so my argument falls down a little) had occurred, so EW did not bother to call the Director. South, who had more information than EW about the need to call the Director, really was the only player who knew well that summoning the Director forthwith was a totally necessary action at that stage. The Director later ruled that by not calling him, South's situation improved (in that the opponents were denied access to the non-11A Laws). Such rulings seem to me to encourage offenders to avoid calling the Director when they have transgressed. Not ideal IMO. There is a major connection here with the second sentence of Law 11A (i.e. the words I quoted above), which is that a sensible Director punishes the NOs via 11A only when they stand to gain through delaying their Director call. To me, this is an important and not-always-fully understood aspect of the current Laws - as long as the NOs don't gain through delaying a Director call, it's not their fault - the delay is the offender's fault unless the NOs have something to gain by their delay. >In this case, if the TD had been called after the 4N/5N bid, and >South had been allowed to "select her final call at that turn after >the applicable penalties have been stated"**, she would >probably have selected 6H, in which case EW have not been >damaged. > >**Phrase taken from the 1987 L27B - it was removed from >the 1997 Laws, does it still apply in some other guise? If the Director had have been called at the appropriate time & had have ruled that 5NT is the intended bid and 4NT is an inadvertent call, then 5NT stands and the auction continues (Law 25A). If EW were aware of the Laws, then the "oops" would have led them to believe that that was indeed the whole story. Thus, by not calling the Director, they were saving time. (I do not intend to encourage civil disobedience by making the above comment.) However, if 4NT was not inadvertent, then West could have accepted 5NT, with the auction continuing (Law 25B1). Otherwise we are getting into the horrific section of the Laws called Law 25B2 which most of us prefer never to even discuss, until such time as it is changed (which is - someone remind me please - 2002 ? 2007? sooner I hope?) Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 15 22:55:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FCtKD29382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail11.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail11.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FCtEH29366 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:55:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail11.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010815125150.BVPF22307.femail11.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:51:50 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:51:56 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <022601c123b0$9ee7eb60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was afraid >that their presence would encourage the practice of psyching, and >they didn't want that. >> IIRC it was because there were Frequent, Rare, and Never boxes... The Frequent psychers wouldn't admit it, and no-one wanted to be stuck with Never (JIC), so everyone checked the Rare box making the information meaningless and useless... Linda PS. 73!!!! appeals in Toronto - and it wasn't even winter :-( -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 15 23:45:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FDis901227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:44:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FDimH01223 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:44:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-122.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.122]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6BB9CA344 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:41:22 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:36:04 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200108141806.OAA28854@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Tue 14 Aug 2001 19:06) writes: >> From: "Brambledown" >> The implications are that the TD was satisfied (1) that North >> did not hear declarer call for the HJ, (2) that North did not >> see dummy move the HJ into the played position and >> (3) that it was then so placed that her view of it was >> restricted. This suggests a singular lapse in concentration >> by North at a critical point in the play, which IMO makes >> this a remarkable judgment call by the TD. > >Yes, quite remarkable indeed. > >I have a quibble on terminology. I believe most of us would call this >a "determination of facts," not a "judgment call." We generally >reserve the latter term for _bridge_ judgment, e.g. logical >alternatives, or what result is likely, or similar things. This is a fair point. I intended 'judgment' in a general sense. Almost the only agreed fact is that North did not play in tempo. The TD has to judge the validity of her stated reasons for this. >> Are we really saying that as long as North convinces the TD of her good >> intentions, then EW have no redress? > >North's intentions don't matter: the relevant laws say nothing of >intentions. But it was precisely because he accepted North's explanation that the TD stated that no adjustment to the result was warranted. > Given the facts above, declarer has called for the card from dummy in > a voice inaudible to North, and dummy has moved the card without > being seen and placed it into a position invisible to North. And > declarer hasn't noticed any of the above actions. If all this has > really happened, why would we wish to give EW any redress? I'm assuming that an element of sarcasm has crept in here! > Of course, as Grattan says, it is somewhat surprising that North didn't > make a comment along the lines of "Oh, you already played?!" I think this is an important point. The first question I asked on learning of the incident was "How did North react when she eventually played to the trick?". I was told that the TD had not asked this question but that she had appeared to play normally. > But that seems to me to bear on the question of determining the facts, > not on the legal outcome once the facts are determined. However the facts are interpreted, it is difficult to believe that North is not guilty at least of inattention. If she is adjudged to have 'no demonstrable bridge reason' for the hesitation, then, as Rik Terveen has pointed out, L72F2 should be applied. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 00:11:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FEBMH01251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:11:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FEBHH01247 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:11:17 +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 KAA28991 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA05322 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:07:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108151407.KAA05322@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brambledown" > However the facts are interpreted, it is difficult to believe that North is > not guilty at least of inattention. Yes. "Difficult to believe" is rather an understatement! Nevertheless, whether we believe it or not, the TD has ruled that North was not at fault. (This is one of the rare cases where an AC might well overturn the TD's finding of fact.) > If she is adjudged to have 'no > demonstrable bridge reason' for the hesitation, then, as Rik Terveen has > pointed out, L72F2 should be applied. Yes again. However, the TD has ruled that misconduct by the other side (concealing the play from dummy) was responsible for North's delay. While we may find this determination of facts, um, "difficult to believe," once it is accepted, the ruling follows automatically. "Waiting for the other side to play a card" _is_ a demonstrable bridge reason for a delay. If the determination of facts were something less astonishing -- that North was indeed guilty of inattention -- then ruling an adjustment would also be automatic. Inattention is _not_ a demonstrable bridge reason, and we do not have to find North guilty of anything more sinister in order to adjust. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 01:09:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FF8l104292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:08:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FF8fH04288 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:08:42 +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 LAA03057 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA26466; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108151505.LAA26466@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Linda > > >PS. > >73!!!! appeals in Toronto - and it wasn't even winter :-( >-- Ya, I heard that there were a lot. Perhaps the Toronto casebook should be called, "Toronto, an Appealing Place to Play" 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 Thu Aug 16 01:13:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FFDcX04308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:13:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FFDWH04304 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:13:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-44.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.44]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F073B209 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:09:18 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:04:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <004f01c12585$fa114b40$b9d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Peter Gill (Wed 15 Aug 2001 13:30) writes: >> Brambledown wrote: >> The TD returned to rule no adjustment, as by not calling the >> director immediately that the 4N bid was changed, EW had >> forfeited the right to penalise (L11A). > This seems to me to be an incomplete and therefore inadequate > Director's ruling, as long as you have quoted it correctly. > The Director may only rule this way "when the non-offending side > may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent > in ignorance of the penalty" (= second sentence of Law 11A). > For his ruling to be complete, surely the Director should have explained > how this requirement was met, before making the ruling. You appear to be absolutely right - I can assure you that the TD made no such reference. >However, if 4NT was not inadvertent, then West could have >accepted 5NT, with the auction continuing (Law 25B1). I'm not sure that West *can* accept 5NT. Certainly if this had happened while the 1987 Laws were still in force then the 5NT bid would be cancelled. South would then be allowed, assuming 4NT was not accepted by the LHO (L27A), "to select her final call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been stated, and any call she has previously attempted to substitute is cancelled, ..."(L27B). Thus South, with a silenced partner (L27B2), would select 6H (or possibly 5H) not 5NT. This provision has been removed from the 1997 Laws. I suspect, however, that it still applies in some other guise, since this would have constituted a significant change and does not appear to have been minuted as such. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 01:59:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FFx8c05406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:59:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FFx2H05386 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:59:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7FFtcr00083 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:55:38 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: > IIRC it was because there were Frequent, Rare, and Never boxes... > > The Frequent psychers wouldn't admit it, and no-one wanted to > be stuck with Never (JIC), so everyone checked the Rare box > making the information meaningless and useless... Perhaps a better solution might have been different boxes Eg "No more once every few sessions" "About once every other session" "On average at least once a session" It's always a problem when designing these response scales to get something that is both short and snappy and consistently interpreted. 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 Aug 16 02:18:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FGGPj07347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:16:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FGGJH07330 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:16:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7FGCuP08072 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:12:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002c01c125a5$12febb00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:08:39 -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: "Linda Trent" > > > > >But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was afraid > >that their presence would encourage the practice of psyching, and > >they didn't want that. > >> > > IIRC it was because there were Frequent, Rare, and Never boxes... We're both wrong. The boxes were Never, Rare, Occ., and Freq. (I just found an old CC in my files.) Moreover, there was a line labeled "Describe:" underneath the boxes, and another line (requiring an Alert) labeled "*Controls." A typical "description" (if any) was "lead directing, five-card suit." No Alert was necessary. These were the days when controls of psychs were permitted (i.e., a NT rebid after a strong jump takeout response). They are now barred in ACBL-land. > The Frequent psychers wouldn't admit it, and no-one wanted to > be stuck with Never (JIC), so everyone checked the Rare box > making the information meaningless and useless... Partnerships that never psyched would indeed tend to check Rare instead of Never. Not because they didn't want to be stuck with the tag, but out of a mistaken fear that a misbid would be characterized as a psych, with bad consequences if Never was checked. I don't remember any mis-marking of the other boxes. Partnerships know their psyching tendencies, opponents do not. This is not good. Some sort of disclossure is called for, and the boxes seem better than nothing. Something else interesting on the old CC was a message in red at the top of the scoring side: "Comparison of scores or discussion of hands with other contestants during a session is ILLEGAL and a violation carries an AUTOMATIC PENALTY of a FULL BOARD of the session at which the infraction occurs. REPEATED VIOLATIONS MAY LEAD TO SUSPENSION" Later versions of the CC carried the same message, but a while back it was dropped in favor of: "When attention is called to an irregularity - CALL THE DIRECTOR" The older CCs had this message on the inside bottom: "Partnerships are required to have two convention cards identically and legibly filled out on the table throughout the session." Now replaced by: "Always Disclose, Never Abuse, Don't Intimidate, Practice Active Ethics" I have a cynical explanation for these changes, but will forbear stating it. 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 Aug 16 02:49:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FGnjl13413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:49:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FGndH13398 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:49:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:03:13 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D0B@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'BLML '" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:03:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >-----Original Message----- >From: Peter Gill >To: BLML >Sent: 8/15/01 7:29 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs >>After the lead was faced and dummy exposed, declarer >>invited EW to "reserve their rights" as her 4N bid was *not* >>a mechanical error. The TD was called who required the >>hand to be played: 6H=. >> >>The TD returned to rule no adjustment, as by not calling the >>director immediately that the 4N bid was changed, EW had >>forfeited the right to penalise (L11A). >This seems to me to be an incomplete and therefore inadequate >Director's ruling, as long as you have quoted it correctly. >The Director may only rule this way "when the non-offending side >may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent >in ignorance of the penalty" (= second sentence of Law 11A). >For his ruling to be complete, surely the Director should have explained >how this requirement was met, before making the ruling. >The quoted words were deliberately added to Law 11A some time >in the last 20 years. IMO Law 11A is overused and I sometimes wonder how >many Directors bother to read Law 11A in full. But L11A does not say "The Director may only rule ..." It says "The Director so rules ..." This is instructions for a specific situation. It does not say that the rule does not apply in other situations. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 04:07:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FI6n516836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:06:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FI6iH16832 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 04:06:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7FI3LP18416; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:01:02 -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 Jeff Rubens of *The Bridge World* has published "Unappealing Appeals, VI" in the September 2001 issue. First he reminds us of his previous opinion that mechanical errors (revokes, insufficient bids, etc.) should be settled "through an equity-seeking procedure" rather than by procedures in the current Laws. He has never told us how this impossible goal would be accomplished. Like all equity enthusiasts, he overlooks the fact that my opponents' stupidity is part of my equity in a deal. They bid something stupid at one table, make some stupid play at another, and then at my table break a law. Any consequent gain for me is part of the game, not an underseved windfall. It is true that mechanical errors are not an attractive part of the game, and computer bridge is correct in making them impossible. However, they are a legitimate part of face-to-face bridge, and trying to nullify their effect is simply impossible. Sometimes possible, usually not. I shudder to think what our local TDs would do when faced with trying to decide on "equity" after an opening lead out of turn. Which brings up another fact that is overlooked: The Laws must take into account the skills of TDs, from top to bottom. With most TDs unable to apply the current Laws correctly, replacing automatic rulings with "equity" rulings is a move in the wrong direction if only for this reason. Jeff goes on to identify two types of score changes: procedural penalties and score adjustments. He considers (like Rich Colker) that the former are better thought of as disciplinary penalties. PPs are not disciplinary penalties, as was made clear when the title of L90 was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties" in 1975. Their purpose is to correct actions (e.g., moving boards to the wrong table) that do not directly affect a deal at the table (handled by other Laws), and are probably not ethical violations. Disciplinary penalties are the subject of L91 ("Penalize or Suspend"). He compares the two types of score changes as analogous with criminal and civil law. He ignores the "civil law" dichotomy in bridge, which is reflected in in L90 and L91. There are violations of duplicate bridge procedures (L90) and violations of deportment, which include unethical actions (L91). He points out rightly that mixing the two types of score changes (e.g., adjusted score plus a PP) is wrong, but then incorrectly typifies some L12 score adjustments as "civil law" rather than "criminal law." He gives a "hesitation Blackwood" example, a player bidding slam based on UI. If the slam goes down, the table result stands, if not, the contract is set back to game. He calls the latter a "disciplinary" step, saying the "the principle of adjusting to restore equity is worth preserving." But that is exactly what L12C aims at! Those of us who think L12C is right he calls "mixers" (i.e., mixing the two types of score changes). Then he characterizes the NOS gain as a possibly undeserved windfall that penalizes others sitting the same way. (See, Adam? I was right in saying that equity enthusiasts have a stated or unstated desire to eliminate windfalls). He doesn't like the fact that if a UI/MI infraction does no damage, the OS is not dealt with. Amen to that. Any time a TD is called for such an infraction, s/he is obligated, damage or no damage, to take measures to see that it doesn't happen again. Jeff doesn't like the fact that the Laws are applied equally to veterans and newcomers, saying that the latter's bridge education does not prepare them adequately. All games and sports expect newcomers to follow the rules in formal competition. A piece touched is a piece moved, a foot touching the line loses the point, tag all the bases after a home run, etc. Why should bridge be an exception? Let them play in their own games if they don't know, or won't follow, the rules. Anyway, I believe newcomers are informally granted considerable leeway by both players and TDs. He then asserts that score adjustments "carry an unavoidable implication of misbehavior." By "misbehavior" I believe he means unethical behavior. He points out that close decisions about LAs which go against a player should not be considered as implying that a player did "anything wrong," which is "obscene." I don't see that as a valid point, since TDs/ACs are sensitive to this issue, and usually apply the Laws without any implication of "wrongdoing." So what does he suggest? Score adjustments when necessary (next month he'll tell us how best to do this), and separate treatment of offenses whether or not they result in a score adjustment. No argument there. I suppose the "equity" approach to score adjustments will appear in next month's editorial. Stay tuned, that should be interesting. 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 Aug 16 06:06:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FK5Rr23380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:05:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FK5KH23368 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:05:21 +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 NAA05795; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:01:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200108152001.NAA05795@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:01:02 PDT." <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:01:44 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Jeff Rubens of *The Bridge World* has published "Unappealing > Appeals, VI" in the September 2001 issue. [snip] > He gives a "hesitation Blackwood" example, a player bidding slam > based on UI. If the slam goes down, the table result stands, if not, > the contract is set back to game. He calls the latter a > "disciplinary" step, saying the "the principle of adjusting to > restore equity is worth preserving." But that is exactly what L12C > aims at! Those of us who think L12C is right he calls "mixers" > (i.e., mixing the two types of score changes). I read this editorial last night, and I actually had trouble getting to sleep last night because I had so many thoughts about what was wrong with it. That was in addition to the sleep I lost when Steve kicked me (r.g.b readers will know what this means . . . :) The most difficult part to swallow was the implication that, in the Hesitation Blackwood case where the Blackwooder hesitates and then signs off at 5H, and partner continues on to 6H, the contract should be put back to 5H (for both sides) *regardless* of whether the slam made or not. Now, it's possible that I could have grossly misunderstood what Rubens was saying; and perhaps in the next installment, he will clarify just what kinds of score adjustments he would like to see. But here is a semi-organized list of my thoughts about this: (1) The point of L12C is to redress any damage done to the non-offenders. If the offenders illegally bid 6H, but it goes down, no damage has been done and therefore no score adjustment is needed to redress damage. Although Rubens refers this a "mixing" two types of score changes, it seems perfectly consistent to me. (2) Rubens seemed to refer to the principle of "adjusting to restore equity" as one that was explicitly stated in the Laws. In fact, the Scope of the Laws refers to "remedy" and "redress", not "equity". I don't have the article in front of me, though, and I don't quite recall his exact wording. (3) One of Rubens' complaints, same as with revokes, is that the undeserved "windfall" can be unfair to the rest of the field. Honestly, I do find such windfalls irritating at times. If I do something great on a board that should get me a top, and then find later that I only got an 11 on the board because of a silly accident that happened at some other table, that's mildly annoying, whether or not the accident involved an infraction. (4) I can take that, though. It's part of the game. (5) But what I wouldn't be able to take, and I suspect most other players wouldn't either, would be to have the opponents get to 6H on the kind of auction Rubens uses as an example, and find a GREAT defense to beat it a trick, and then have the director tell me he's going to reduce my score by 750 points because the *opponents* did something illegal during the auction. (6) I believe that if we change the Laws to restore "equity" in that situation, then we will also need to hire bodyguards to accompany the Directors when they go back to the table to tell the non-offenders their scores are going to be reduced. (7) I'm only half joking about that last one. (8) In fact, who would call the Director to complain about the hesitation in that situation? The Director can't adjust the score if he's never called. NO's who are aware enough to know that the adjustment might hurt the NO's and help the offenders won't call. Do we really want a situation where the offenders get to call the Director to tell them, "We broke the Law and we believe the score should be adjusted in our favor"? Sounds almost as bad as the American tort system. (9) Rubens used civil law as an analogy. Well, if A and B have a contract, and B breaches the contract but does it in such a dumb way that A ends up gaining from the breach, is any judge going to order A to give the money back? (Assuming that the gain didn't come at the expense of an innocent third party.) > Then he characterizes the NOS gain as a possibly undeserved windfall > that penalizes others sitting the same way. (See, Adam? I was right > in saying that equity enthusiasts have a stated or unstated desire > to eliminate windfalls). I'm not crazy about windfalls either; my solution to this problem is to try to concentrate better so that I don't give out so *&@#$#^&@* many of them. -- 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 Aug 16 06:14:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FKEBL24989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:14:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FKE6H24979 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:14:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-490.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.234]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2E7F5536B8 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:10:33 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:05:15 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200108151407.KAA05322@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner (Wed 15 Aug 2001 15:08) writes: >> Brambledown wrote: >> If she is adjudged to have 'no >> demonstrable bridge reason' for the hesitation, then, as Rik Terveen has >> pointed out, L72F2 should be applied. > >Yes again. However, the TD has ruled that misconduct by the other side >(concealing the play from dummy) was responsible for North's delay. The TD did not suggest misconduct by dummy, although you may say that this is implicit in his ruling. The bidding box in question is North's, so that if it is so badly placed that she cannot see dummy's normally played cards, she is the architect of her own misfortune. If OTOH the bidding box is correctly placed, it would IMO require a quite extraordinary placing of a played card for North's view of it to be hidden by the bidding box. So dummy, whose supersonic hearing has picked up declarer's inaudible call, whose speed in playing the HJ deceives the eye (or at least North's), now places the card with millimetric precision in the shadow of North's bidding box, at least 12 inches from its normal resting place and neither declarer nor South raise an eyebrow! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 06:37:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FKaox25608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:36:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FKaiH25604 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:36:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.2.106] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15X7Ll-0006Jc-00; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:33:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c125c9$823bdce0$6a027ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "John Nichols" , "'BLML '" References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D0B@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:33:11 +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 John wrote: > >The quoted words were deliberately added to Law 11A some time > >in the last 20 years. IMO Law 11A is overused and I sometimes wonder how > >many Directors bother to read Law 11A in full. > > > But L11A does not say "The Director may only rule ..." It says "The > Director so rules ..." This is instructions for a specific situation. It > does not say that the rule does not apply in other situations. I think that the presence of those words is indicative of the intent that the Director should so rule when and only when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty. Otherwise, it is difficult to see why the words are there - if the Director is supposed so to rule in any and all situations, why qualify the Law? Not that the given ruling makes any sense to me at all. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 06:42:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FKfuU25628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:41:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FKfoH25624 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:41:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.2.106] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15X7Qj-0000N3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:38:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c125ca$39d3fc20$6a027ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:38:19 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > Realistically one might expect a psyche on around one hand in 20 in decent > company. Really? I play quite a lot of bridge in what I, at any rate, would regard as decent company. At a club duplicate on Monday night an opponent opened 1S in first seat at green on a 3-2-3-5 one count. This is the *only* psychic bid that has occurred at my table in the year 2001. Perhaps the knowledge that I am a member of our Laws Committee has a dampening effect on the imagination of my opponents - but I would describe a figure of one in 20 as ridiculously high. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 07:08:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FL8Hf25651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:08:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FL7oH25647 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:07:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.206]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA50273 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:04:01 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:04:26 +0100 Message-ID: <01C125D6.3FD901E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:04:25 +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 snipped: -----Original Message----- From: Peter Gill [SMTP:GillP@bigpond.com] Sent: 15 August 2001 13:30 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Chas Fellows wrote: >EW Game, Dealer East: > > K 10 9 7 > J 10 6 2 > A J > A K 9 > > A Q 8 > A K 8 4 3 > Q 8 5 3 > Q > >With EW silent throughout the bidding was >1H - 1S - 3D - 4H - 4S(A) - 5C(A) - 4N/5N* - 6H end. >*Immediately the 4N was placed on the table, South said >"Oops" and smoothly substituted 5N. > However, if 4NT was not inadvertent, then West could have accepted 5NT, with the auction continuing (Law 25B1). Otherwise we are getting into the horrific section of the Laws called Law 25B2 which most of us prefer never to even discuss, until such time as it is changed (which is - someone remind me please - 2002 ? 2007? sooner I hope?) Peter Gill Sydney Australia. I don't think LHO can accept the 5NT call - we cancel the 5NT call and go to Law 27. (Footnote to Law 25B1 with Lille clarification) 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 Aug 16 07:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FLRoW25677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:27:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FLRiH25673 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:27:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7FLOKP00874 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:24:20 -0800 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:23:50 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: <006801c1257e$17e25360$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 [Discussion of 2C-2S-3D-3H being 'likely' to be a psych snipped] I am in general agreement both with 1 in 5 being about the right chance that 3H is psychic by a good but unfamiliar player, and that it's sufficiently obvious I find it hard to imagine anyone being entitled to redress at being surprised by it. On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Rik Terveen wrote: > > Just a clarifying question: Did you mean to say that in the UK, in a decent level tournament one sees a psych in one hand in twenty or did I misunderstand something? > In the eight years that I've played (in the USA, The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden), there have been a total of 5 psychs while I was playing (2 by me, 1 by partner and 2 by the opponents). I am sure that I have played a lot more than 100 hands. > I couldn't tell whether Tim meant that 1 deal in 20 involved a psych by someone, or whether a good player ought psych once a session. The latter I find much too high; I have only once met a player who actually did it with a frequency approaching that. I personally pysch (intentionally, that is) once in 100 or 150 deals, which is more than half the time when the appropriate conditions to think I will gain from it exist. That'd mean with four of me at one table (scary!) you'd see a psych by someone a little less than once per session. In practice, at least in the northwest US and western Canada tournament scene, the typical player psychs MUCH less frequently than I do. I'd say I run into a psych by an opponent once every second or third week-long regional I attend. Once in 500 hands is probably an overestimate of the typical tournament player's frequency. I would like to see the old checkboxes come back. I interpreted them as meaning Frequent = almost every session, Occasional = rather like what I do, once in several sessions, Rare = maybe twice a year, Never = utter moral hatred of the whole idea of a pysch. I was just getting around to admitting I probably ought to check Occasional instead of Rare when our club exhausted its supply of the old convention cards. The old names, even, suit me just fine, I can't think of better ones. People were afraid to check Never for some reason, though I know a great many players who truly never would. If correctly filled out, CCs in my region would show Never and Rare about 50% each; Occasional 1-2%; Frequent, maybe one player in 1000. 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 Aug 16 07:48:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FLlHN29468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:47:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FLlAH29440 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:47:11 +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 RAA29468 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:43:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA06084 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:43:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108152143.RAA06084@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > I would like to see the old checkboxes come back. I interpreted them as > meaning Frequent = almost every session, Occasional = rather like what I > do, once in several sessions, Rare = maybe twice a year, Never = utter > moral hatred of the whole idea of a pysch. Many years ago, the ACBL Bulletin had an article on how to fill in the checkboxes. IIRC the article was written by Edwin Kantar. Gordon's interpretation is the one in the article except that "Never" meant a partnership agreement not to psych, not a personal dislike. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 08:00:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FM0Rb02558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:00:27 +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 f7FM0LH02537 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:00:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA29836 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA06102 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:56:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:56:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108152156.RAA06102@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Brambledown" > I'm not sure that West *can* accept 5NT. He can: L25B1. > Certainly if this had happened > while the 1987 Laws were still in force then the 5NT bid would be cancelled. > South would then be allowed, assuming 4NT was not accepted by the LHO > (L27A), "to select her final call at that turn after the applicable > penalties have been stated, and any call she has previously attempted to > substitute is cancelled, ..."(L27B). Around 1997 or shortly after, BLML had a thread on the subject of premature correction of an insufficient bid. If I recall the result correctly, a player who corrects _to a sufficient bid_ is stuck with that correction, even if it is not the bid he would have chosen had he known all the rules. Correction to double or redouble is of course not allowed; the consensus was that such an attempted correction is cancelled, and the offender gets to hear the rules and then take his best shot. Was there something special about correcting to pass or to a different insufficient bid? Or is my memory wrong again? As far as I can tell, *had the TD been called* immediately after the 4NT/5NT business, West could have accepted either 4NT or 5NT with no further penalty. Or West could have accepted neither, in which case 5NT would have stood, and North would have been barred. (I am assuming that 27B2 and not 27B1 will apply. Make the obvious modification if the assumption is 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 Thu Aug 16 08:54:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FMrPm13382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:53:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FMrHH13373 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:53:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-85-26.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.85.26] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15X9Tv-000BB1-00; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:49:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c125dc$e16044a0$1a55063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:15:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > Grattan you entirely miss the point. When a pair > is non-vulnerable against vulnerable, the other > side has shown considerable balance of strength, > partner has bid and you have support it is an > obvious psyche opportunity. You could put any > 3 rubber-bridge playing strangers around the > table with the psycher and all of them would > understand enough of the basics of the game to > regard the bid with suspicion. No partnership > understandings, no agreements, just plain > common sense. > +=+ You have said nothing I have not heard a hundred times. I am still not prepared to form a judgement on the superficial facts you have described. The question still remains whether there was an understanding (not 'special' - this word does not appear in 40A). If there was such an understanding - about psyching, not about the meaning of the bid - the law required that there be prior disclosure of it. The law makes no exception on grounds of 'common bridge knowledge' concerning violations of announced systemic meanings. ~ 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 Aug 16 08:54:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FMrR413383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:53:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FMrIH13375 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:53:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-85-26.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.85.26] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15X9Tx-000BB1-00; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:49:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c125dc$e2ae6f80$1a55063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Rik Terveen" , , "BLML" References: <006801c1257e$17e25360$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors (Long quoted extracts). Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:50:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; BLML Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tim West-meads > To: > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:37 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > ---------------------\x/-------------------- > > Just a clarifying question: Did you mean to say that > in the UK, in a decent level tournament one sees a > psych in one hand in twenty or did I misunderstand > something? In the eight years that I've played (in > the USA, The Netherlands, Finland and Sweden), > there have been a total of 5 psychs while I was > playing (2 by me, 1 by partner and 2 by the > opponents). I am sure that I have played a lot > more than 100 hands. > +=+ I quote: "Directors should understand that the Laws have never countenanced a change in the understanding of what is a psychic call. The fundamental unpreparedness of the psychic situation is as much a condition today as when a player first hit upon the idea of deliberately and grossly misrpresenting a hand." >>> "It is the case that what constitutes a sober and tolerable level of psyching will vary according to the competition environment in which it occurs...... In the great majority of 'average' bridge clubs there may well be 3 or 4 psyches in an evening's duplicate bridge. A player who virtually never seems to survive a 26-board session without having psyched at least once can certainly expect the tag of 'frequency' amongst club members; a player who quite often psyches twice in a session will also qualify. A partnership will draw attention should they psyche three times in a session." >>> "Only an experienced Director can be the true judge of the environmental considerations as to what is 'frequent'." >>> "Frequency of psyching is not objectionable for itself, but only if there is a development consequentially of anticipation on the part of partner, or if it appears more designed to spray amongst opponents abnormal opportunities of achieving good scores than to achieve for the player himself fulfilment of his will to win." (EBL Commentary, 1992) ============================= " a partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not." (WBF Laws Committee 30 Aug 00) ============================ I think the above views are worthy of comparison with opinions given in this thread. One further point: Law 40A requires that prior disclosure be made of any 'partnership understanding'; Law 40B refers to opponents' understanding of the *meaning* of a call. The two terms are different: 'meaning' is meaning according to system. I would doubt it can be said to cover a partnership understanding about violations of that meaning. Also quoting: "The right of opponents to have *prior* knowledge of a partnership understanding should not be disregarded. An alert after a call is made does not give prior disclosure as Law 40A requires." and "Regulations to which Law 40B refers should be framed to call for prior disclosure where it is evidently inequitable for the opponents not to have it." (Seminar Papers, EBL, August 2001). ~ 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 Aug 16 08:58:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FMwFZ13402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:58:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7FMw9H13398 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:58:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7FMsjP28334; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:54:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005401c125dd$361795c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200108152001.NAA05795@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:53:56 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Jeff Rubens of *The Bridge World* has published "Unappealing > > Appeals, VI" in the September 2001 issue. > > > The most difficult part to swallow was the implication that, in > the Hesitation Blackwood case where the Blackwooder hesitates > and then signs off at 5H, and partner continues on to 6H, the > contract should be put back to 5H (for both sides) *regardless* > of whether the slam made or not. Now, it's possible that I > could have grossly misunderstood what Rubens was saying; and > perhaps in the next installment, he will clarify just what > kinds of score adjustments he would like to see. Well, we don't know yet exactly what he has in mind for achieving "equity." It may not be as you think. It seems likely that the NOS will not be given much benefit of doubt, the OS will be given more benefit of doubt, the inexperienced will get away with UI/MI infractions almost entirely, and PPs will be common for UI/MI infractions regardless of damage assessment. But I'm guessing. Let's wait until next month. I once urged Jeff to subscribe to BLML, or at least get a responsible subordinate to do so, but no response. We all (?) know that one person working alone cannot come up with an internally consistent set of Laws that conforms with the spirit of the game. Probably he seeks advice (or more likely, concurrence) from friends and associates, but I note that none of *The Bridge World*'s masthead staff is a BLML subscriber. To me that's a must for anyone who wants to change the Laws or change how they are implemented. 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 Aug 16 09:11:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7FNBZt13423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:11:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7FNBTH13419 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:11:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauiie.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.74.78]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA22049 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00e201c125df$10b1b160$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200108152156.RAA06102@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:07:31 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:56 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > From: "Brambledown" > > I'm not sure that West *can* accept 5NT. > > He can: L25B1. > I don't think so. L25B1 refers the ruling to L27 when the original call was insufficient (see the footnote). L27A very specifically indicates that an insufficient bid is accepted if LHO makes a call. There is no mechanism for LHO to accept the changed call, and 27B cannot be applied once the call has been accepted. So, 5N is reverted back to 4N, but the rest of the auction stands. Now, was the 5N MI to the opponents (since the actual call was still 4N)?..... > > Certainly if this had happened > > while the 1987 Laws were still in force then the 5NT bid would be cancelled. > > South would then be allowed, assuming 4NT was not accepted by the LHO > > (L27A), "to select her final call at that turn after the applicable > > penalties have been stated, and any call she has previously attempted to > > substitute is cancelled, ..."(L27B). > > Around 1997 or shortly after, BLML had a thread on the subject of > premature correction of an insufficient bid. If I recall the result > correctly, a player who corrects _to a sufficient bid_ is stuck with > that correction, even if it is not the bid he would have chosen had he > known all the rules. Correction to double or redouble is of course not > allowed; the consensus was that such an attempted correction is > cancelled, and the offender gets to hear the rules and then take his > best shot. Was there something special about correcting to pass or to > a different insufficient bid? Or is my memory wrong again? > > As far as I can tell, *had the TD been called* immediately after > the 4NT/5NT business, West could have accepted either 4NT or 5NT > with no further penalty. Or West could have accepted neither, in > which case 5NT would have stood, and North would have been barred. > (I am assuming that 27B2 and not 27B1 will apply. Make the obvious > modification if the assumption is wrong.) > LHO could accept the 4N call only. The 4N bidder could correct to 5N under 27B1 only if he could convince the TD that 4N was not conventional (not likely!). So we're up to 27B2. The 5N call stands, and partner is barred. Here is the clarification from Lille: "8: Footnote to Law 25B1. Where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B." In the given case, by calling, LHO has already accepted the insufficient bid. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 11:07:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G16qV14583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:06:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G16lH14579 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:06:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7G13NP08743; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007801c125ef$2e5ad240$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:02:47 -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 Please ignore the fact that I seem to have switched the "criminal law" and "civil law" analogies. My only defense is that the editorial itself was a bit confusing. I wish I could quote the whole thing, and I urge non-subscribers to *The Bridge World* to get hold of a copy and read it. Marv > Jeff Rubens of *The Bridge World* has published "Unappealing > Appeals, VI" in the September 2001 issue. > > First he reminds us of his previous opinion that mechanical errors > (revokes, insufficient bids, etc.) should be settled "through an > equity-seeking procedure" rather than by procedures in the current > Laws. He has never told us how this impossible goal would be > accomplished. > > Like all equity enthusiasts, he overlooks the fact that my > opponents' stupidity is part of my equity in a deal. They bid > something stupid at one table, make some stupid play at another, and > then at my table break a law. Any consequent gain for me is part of > the game, not an underseved windfall. > > It is true that mechanical errors are not an attractive part of the > game, and computer bridge is correct in making them impossible. > However, they are a legitimate part of face-to-face bridge, and > trying to nullify their effect is simply impossible. Sometimes > possible, usually not. I shudder to think what our local TDs would > do when faced with trying to decide on "equity" after an opening > lead out of turn. > > Which brings up another fact that is overlooked: The Laws must take > into account the skills of TDs, from top to bottom. With most TDs > unable to apply the current Laws correctly, replacing automatic > rulings with "equity" rulings is a move in the wrong direction if > only for this reason. > > Jeff goes on to identify two types of score changes: procedural > penalties and score adjustments. He considers (like Rich Colker) > that the former are better thought of as disciplinary penalties. PPs > are not disciplinary penalties, as was made clear when the title of > L90 was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural > Penalties" in 1975. Their purpose is to correct actions (e.g., > moving boards to the wrong table) that do not directly affect a deal > at the table (handled by other Laws), and are probably not ethical > violations. Disciplinary penalties are the subject of L91 ("Penalize > or Suspend"). > > He compares the two types of score changes as analogous with > criminal and civil law. He ignores the "civil law" dichotomy in > bridge, which is reflected in in L90 and L91. There are violations > of duplicate bridge procedures (L90) and violations of deportment, > which include unethical actions (L91). > > He points out rightly that mixing the two types of score changes > (e.g., adjusted score plus a PP) is wrong, but then incorrectly > typifies some L12 score adjustments as "civil law" rather than > "criminal law." > > He gives a "hesitation Blackwood" example, a player bidding slam > based on UI. If the slam goes down, the table result stands, if not, > the contract is set back to game. He calls the latter a > "disciplinary" step, saying the "the principle of adjusting to > restore equity is worth preserving." But that is exactly what L12C > aims at! Those of us who think L12C is right he calls "mixers" > (i.e., mixing the two types of score changes). > > Then he characterizes the NOS gain as a possibly undeserved windfall > that penalizes others sitting the same way. (See, Adam? I was right > in saying that equity enthusiasts have a stated or unstated desire > to eliminate windfalls). > > He doesn't like the fact that if a UI/MI infraction does no damage, > the OS is not dealt with. Amen to that. Any time a TD is called for > such an infraction, s/he is obligated, damage or no damage, to take > measures to see that it doesn't happen again. > > Jeff doesn't like the fact that the Laws are applied equally to > veterans and newcomers, saying that the latter's bridge education > does not prepare them adequately. All games and sports expect > newcomers to follow the rules in formal competition. A piece touched > is a piece moved, a foot touching the line loses the point, tag all > the bases after a home run, etc. Why should bridge be an exception? > Let them play in their own games if they don't know, or won't > follow, the rules. Anyway, I believe newcomers are informally > granted considerable leeway by both players and TDs. > > He then asserts that score adjustments "carry an unavoidable > implication of misbehavior." By "misbehavior" I believe he means > unethical behavior. He points out that close decisions about LAs > which go against a player should not be considered as implying that > a player did "anything wrong," which is "obscene." I don't see that > as a valid point, since TDs/ACs are sensitive to this issue, and > usually apply the Laws without any implication of "wrongdoing." > > So what does he suggest? Score adjustments when necessary (next > month he'll tell us how best to do this), and separate treatment of > offenses whether or not they result in a score adjustment. No > argument there. > > I suppose the "equity" approach to score adjustments will appear in > next month's editorial. Stay tuned, that should be interesting. > > 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 Thu Aug 16 12:00:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G1xqx14635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:59:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7G1xkH14631 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:59:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-121-63-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.63]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f7G1uK612147 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:56:20 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <3B7B2887.C86D5349@ptialaska.net> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:57:27 -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: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think I may have got one wrong last night. I was called as director, and here is what happened: North was declarer, 7 or 8 tricks had been played, and the H8 was face-up in front of East. Me: "How can I help you?" East: "I played this card out of turn a few tricks back, now do I have to lead it?" Me: "Are you supposed to be on lead?" East: "Yes." Me: "Then it has to be led. In the future, you should call the director when the irregularity first happens." End of story. However, on reflection, it seems that Laws 9B, 10A, and 10B tell me that I am wrong. Additionally, I should have tried to determine whether Law 11A applied. My first instinct was to rule that there was not a penalty card, since the director had not previously been summoned, but I eschewed this instinct since I thought it was simply an emotional response. We are trying to train the players at our club to call the director when appropriate, and I was frustrated that they did not feel the need to do so in a routine case like East leading out of turn. So, my simple question is, when is a penalty card not a penalty card? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 16:58:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G6rwZ25646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:53:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G6rqH25642 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-100-87.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.100.87] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XGz1-000AC3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:50:23 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c12620$054b1460$5764063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200108152143.RAA06084@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:49:34 +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: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > Many years ago, the ACBL Bulletin had an > article on how to fill in the checkboxes. IIRC > the article was written by Edwin Kantar. > Gordon's interpretation is the one in the > article except that "Never" meant a > partnership agreement not to psych, not > a personal dislike. > -- +=+ Since a psychic call is a violation of partnership agreement, a player who ticks "never" may still psyche. The checkboxes are to do with style in the partnership. The point at which the 'psychic action' is based upon a partnership understanding, and is therefore subject to regulation, is not directly affected by the presence or absence of checkboxes. ~ 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 Aug 16 17:14:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G7ERX26352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:14:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G7ELH26337 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:14:21 +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, 16 Aug 2001 09:12:20 +0200 Message-ID: <001301c12622$e78ff780$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:13:08 +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 f7G7ENH26339 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:05 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs *SNIP* > So > dummy, whose supersonic hearing has picked up declarer's inaudible call, > whose speed in playing the HJ deceives the eye (or at least North's), now > places the card with millimetric precision in the shadow of North's bidding > box, at least 12 inches from its normal resting place and neither declarer > nor South raise an eyebrow! > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > Perhaps declarer and South read a lot of comic books ;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 Aug 16 17:34:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G7XEh28755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:33:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G7X8H28745 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-102-163.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.102.163] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XHb1-000FHs-00; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:29:39 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c12625$81805040$a366063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:30:20 +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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:01 PM Subject: [BLML] Justice vs Equity > > > He points out rightly that mixing the two types > of score changes (e.g., adjusted score plus a PP) > is wrong, but then incorrectly typifies some L12 > score adjustments as "civil law" rather than > "criminal law." > +=+ I assume by "wrong" we are to understand 'undesirable'. It is legal; Law 90 is independent of score adjustment and a procedural penalty is not a score adjustment. The award of a PP where a score is also adjusted is common practice and a well-established power of the Director/AC. I would have no thought of changing this. Punishment is not the purpose of score adjustment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 17:48:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G7m9629466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:48:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G7m3H29462 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:48:04 +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, 16 Aug 2001 09:46:02 +0200 Message-ID: <007701c12627$9cf27540$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: Cc: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:46:51 +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 f7G7m5H29463 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:55 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > In-Reply-To: > > IIRC it was because there were Frequent, Rare, and Never boxes... > > > > The Frequent psychers wouldn't admit it, and no-one wanted to > > be stuck with Never (JIC), so everyone checked the Rare box > > making the information meaningless and useless... > > Perhaps a better solution might have been different boxes > Eg "No more once every few sessions" > "About once every other session" > "On average at least once a session" > It's always a problem when designing these response scales to get > something that is both short and snappy and consistently interpreted. > > Tim I vaguely remember from the time that I was playing in the USA that there where guidelines for marking the boxes. They were something like: never: once every three years rare: once every half a year frequent: once or more every month If I understand you correctly, all UK players would have had to mark the 'frequent' box. Most players that I knew marked never as well as rare. 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 Aug 16 18:04:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G82iH29483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:02:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7G82bH29479 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:02:38 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA10172; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:59:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 16 09:57:34 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 <01K774M8YXNW000VDY@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:58:47 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:59:00 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:59:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B909@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 (9) Rubens used civil law as an analogy. Well, if A and B have a > contract, and B breaches the contract but does it in such a dumb > way that A ends up gaining from the breach, is any judge going to > order A to give the money back? (Assuming that the gain didn't > come at the expense of an innocent third party.) > There is an expression that each comparison is limping, but yours isn't even touching the ground. I am not sure what you mean with 'back' in give the money back? It is not going to B is it? But if A gains money because of illegal behaviour of B the idea that A is not allowed to keep that money doesn't sound strange to me. And your condition that the gain should not come at the expense of an innocent side makes it really strange to give this example. The main issue here always is that third party. The idea from Jeff Rubens isn't new, the ACBL recently had some AC decisions in which they took away the gain for the innocent side when the offenders had lost from their infraction. The ACBL once in a while invites me to comment on those decisions and everytime I saw this happening I disagreed strongly. Not because I didn't like the idea, that wasn't the issue, but because this approach infringes the laws. And though some of you sometimes don't recognize it or express doubts, I am a firm believer in upholding our laws. I also tried to explain why the ACBL has gone this way (I am not sure it is official, I even get the idea that it is left again, may be I have some influence). When almost all favorable decisions after receiving UI are deemed to be demonstrably suggested, and therefore taken away, the non offending side gets it good score quite (too) easy. If 12 tables play a howell and 10 tables play 6S made, one plays 4S and another one reaches 6S after a hesitation their opponents get a shared top when this 6S is not allowed because it could have been suggested, logical alternative etc. In a hesitating field playing the 'problem boards' against hesitators makes you winner if you can avoid the time penalties for yourself caused by your opponents. So one deviation creates the other. But this situation is not a non-problem, there is no risk for the non-offenders anymore, either redress or a top when the slam goes down. So, to be honest, I feel some sympathy for this idea. But we certainly need 12C3 to implement it. And my sympathy has disappeared completely if there is also a suggestion to take away the top when the offenders go one off in there 'illegal' slam. Now you don't play for your own result anymore, or just implicit by trying to keep your opponent's score low. Still the best solution is to try to find a relative liberal approach in allowing players to continue the auction after having available UI. Australia still uses the 75% rule I understand, which is liberal enough. When the TD is reasonably convinced that the same contract had been reached without the UI he should allow it. And then the adjusted scores in my opinion are equity based. We have to admit that Jeff Rubens, without being revolutionary, has addressed an interesting and important issue here. 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 Aug 16 18:38:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G8aq529540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:36:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G8alH29536 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:36:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.16.37]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010816083317.TZP6330.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:33:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c1262d$9c0bfe20$2510ff3e@jones1> From: "Anne Jones" To: References: <3B7B2887.C86D5349@ptialaska.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:29:46 +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 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Schmahl" To: Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:57 AM Subject: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? > I think I may have got one wrong last night. I was called as director, > and here is what happened: > > North was declarer, 7 or 8 tricks had been played, and the H8 was > face-up in front of East. > > Me: "How can I help you?" > East: "I played this card out of turn a few tricks back, now do I have > to lead it?" > Me: "Are you supposed to be on lead?" > East: "Yes." > Me: "Then it has to be led. In the future, you should call the director > when the irregularity first happens." > > End of story. > > However, on reflection, it seems that Laws 9B, 10A, and 10B tell me that > I am wrong. Additionally, I should have tried to determine whether Law > 11A applied. > > My first instinct was to rule that there was not a penalty card, since > the director had not previously been summoned, but I eschewed this > instinct since I thought it was simply an emotional response. We are > trying to train the players at our club to call the director when > appropriate, and I was frustrated that they did not feel the need to do > so in a routine case like East leading out of turn. > > So, my simple question is, when is a penalty card not a penalty card? > -- > He said "I played" so maybe he is right and it should be a major penalty card, but what lead rights have been invoked if any since it got there? Maybe he meant - it got played accidentally when I dropped it - and it wasn't played at all, so truly it is only a minor penalty card, I believe the answer to your question "when is a penalty card not a penalty card?" is :- "When the director has not said it is". 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 Aug 16 18:59:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G8xNs29558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:59:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G8xGH29554 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:59:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7G8tpf28837 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:55:51 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:55 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <007701c12627$9cf27540$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > I vaguely remember from the time that I was playing in the USA that > there where guidelines for marking the boxes. They were something like: > > never: once every three years > rare: once every half a year > frequent: once or more every month This scale has the problem of ignoring frequency of play. > If I understand you correctly, all UK players would have had to mark > the 'frequent' box. Most players that I knew marked never as well as > rare. I play primarily rubber bridge with frequent players - they would indeed all need to tick the frequent box (and that itself would seem inadequate - most are "baby psyches" like weaker minor, lead inhibitors, etc). My memories of the YC (where I played occasionally up to a few years ago was that psyches against me were about once/session at my table but I could be wrong). David Burn, who plays far more duplicate than I, gave a frequency close rare on this scale. I was truly amazed - I had not realised how different the codes had become. Sadly it seems to me that duplicate players probably are totally unschooled in the delicate art of psyche handling - what a shame! 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 Aug 16 19:54:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G9rln29588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:53:47 +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-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 f7G9rfH29584 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:53:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-67-26.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.67.26] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XJn3-000Fae-00; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:50:14 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c12638$d9a24900$1a437bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:48:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 15 August 2001 19:01 Subject: [BLML] Justice vs Equity > > Then he characterizes the NOS gain as a > possibly undeserved windfall that penalizes > others sitting the same way. > +=+ Edgar Kaplan was especially keen that the words 'at his own table' in Law 92A should be understood to deny to players at other tables any interest or rights in a ruling or adjustment given at the table where the ruling is requested. The ruling is to be given at that table without reference to the effects at other tables. That is where the law stands today. If we want to change that, it requires some addition to the laws. However, such a change would simply move the matter down the line. If a ruling is given that is plainly bad, but the players do not appeal, the effects are felt in the scores at other tables just the same. This is nothing more than the game of bridge. It would be a little tricky to require that every ruling given should be reviewed automatically before it is set in stone. ~ 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 Aug 16 19:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7G9t6v29600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:55:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7G9t0H29596 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:55:01 +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, 16 Aug 2001 11:52:53 +0200 Message-ID: <00a901c12639$557050e0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:53:38 +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 f7G9t2H29597 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > In-Reply-To: <007701c12627$9cf27540$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > > > I vaguely remember from the time that I was playing in the USA that > > there where guidelines for marking the boxes. They were something like: > > > > never: once every three years > > rare: once every half a year > > frequent: once or more every month > > This scale has the problem of ignoring frequency of play. That is one of the reasons why I still remember it. > > > If I understand you correctly, all UK players would have had to mark > > the 'frequent' box. Most players that I knew marked never as well as > > rare. > > I play primarily rubber bridge with frequent players - they would indeed > all need to tick the frequent box (and that itself would seem inadequate > - most are "baby psyches" like weaker minor, lead inhibitors, etc). > My memories of the YC (where I played occasionally up to a few years ago > was that psyches against me were about once/session at my table but I > could be wrong). David Burn, who plays far more duplicate than I, gave a > frequency close rare on this scale. I was truly amazed - I had not > realised how different the codes had become. Sadly it seems to me that > duplicate players probably are totally unschooled in the delicate art of > psyche handling - what a shame! > > Tim Since most duplicate players play in fixed partnerships, the return on investment on a psych is much lower than in rubber bridge: a) It is virtually impossible to 'correct' a psych by making a strange looking bid later in the auction. There are few strange bids. Most bids that are impossible for a casual partnership will be precisely defined for some exotic hand type in a regular partnership. b) Accurate system definition with a partner who is willing and able to play like that yields better rewards than psyching. c) When a player is a regular psycher, his partner will be aware of his psyching tendencies and it becomes an (implicit) understanding. As soon as it becomes an understanding, it is not a psych anymore. The surprise effect (which generates the good scores for psyches) is gone. While the psych may be disappearing with the popularization of duplicate, there are other tactical moves emerging: There is the delicate art of swinging, a concept that is not applicable to rubber bridge. Greetings from the world of duplicate, 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 Aug 16 20:34:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GAXxC29635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:33:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be ([134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GAXqH29631 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:33:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA23520; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:29:37 +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 MAA05057; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:30:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00a901c1263e$f7fa7a20$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Michael Schmahl" , References: <3B7B2887.C86D5349@ptialaska.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:34:02 +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: Michael Schmahl > So, my simple question is, when is a penalty card not a penalty card? AG : when is a horse a dog ? Never. The card remained a penalty card. If the card had to be played (as an attack or following suit or as a discard) on a former trick, then the offender went again L52A. But the declarer is deemd to have accepted the illegal lead (L52B1b) and the card remained a penalty card (L52B1c), so it had to ba played at the moment they called you. It is possible that the declarer had the posssibility to use L50D2, but his non-demand meant that the card remained a penalty card (50D2b). So, all's well that ends well. If you had been called before, the same sequiece of events could have happened, with the same result. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 21:48:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GBld704453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:47:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GBlWH04434 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 21:47:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-71.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.71]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AE0962D6F for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:44:06 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:38:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <00e201c125df$10b1b160$0200000a@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 00:08) writes: > Here is the clarification from Lille: > "8: Footnote to Law 25B1. > Where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature > correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A > to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. > If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the > offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B." IOW we are back in the 1987 Laws position, as I suspected, and South can correct to 6H without penalty (apart from barring partner!). It seems a curious thing for the lawmakers to do - remove this provision from L27B (where it appears to belong) and then re-instate it with a clarification footnote to L25B1. Did something get overlooked? I assume there's a history behind this. > In the given case, by calling, LHO has already accepted the insufficient bid. No. LHO passed over 5NT because he had been misled into thinking that South had corrected a mechanical error. In any event, we are now discussing what would have happened had the TD been called immediately after the 4NT/5NT bid. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 22:23:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GCNPP11897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:23:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GCNJH11878 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:23:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de by mailout00.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15XM7t-0000DF-0B; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:19:53 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.0.204.22]) by fmrl01.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15XM7q-02tYw4C; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:19:50 +0200 Message-ID: <3B7BB95F.9FA83DE@vwalther.de> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:15:27 +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] Justice vs Equity References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B909@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> 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 "Kooijman, A." wrote: > [snips] > ... When almost all favorable decisions after receiving UI are > deemed to be demonstrably suggested, and therefore taken away, the non > offending side gets it good score quite (too) easy. If 12 tables play a > howell and 10 tables play 6S made, one plays 4S and another one reaches 6S > after a hesitation their opponents get a shared top when this 6S is not > allowed because it could have been suggested, logical alternative etc. In a > hesitating field playing the 'problem boards' against hesitators makes you > winner if you can avoid the time penalties for yourself caused by your > opponents. > So one deviation creates the other. > But this situation is not a non-problem, there is no risk for the > non-offenders anymore, either redress or a top when the slam goes down. > ... I do not agree. To play a board against the hesitators is the same type of luck as playing against people who are unable to find 6S. My interpretation of the results described above is this: 10 Pairs spent the last afternoon on perfection of their bidding-system. They acquired the ability of bidding slams which other people do not reach. Two pairs (the one in 4 spade and the opponents of the hesitators) preferred reading something about the laws (BLML?).In consequence they know that it is illegal to play hesitation blackwood but they are not able to find 6S without that. On the other hand they acquired the ability to recognize a violation of the laws. The last pair preferred to spend the afternoon on the beach and uses the 'hesitation blackwood system'. Good luck if you play this special hand against someone who knows not enough about the bidding. Good luck if you play hesitation blackwood against someone who does not know the law. Why should knowledge of the laws be of less importance then knowledge of the technique? Both is part of the game. If someone gains a good score because he recognized the violation of the laws, think of all the bad scores you will have because someone breaks the rules and nobody cares. Just think of his good score as a kind of reward for catching the breaker of laws. 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 Aug 16 22:57:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GCufM13563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:56:41 +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 f7GCuZH13559 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA24440; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:53:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 16 14:51:31 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 <01K77EW04RK8000WYY@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:52:59 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:53:11 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:52:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity To: "'Volker R. Walther'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B90E@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 > "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > [snips] > If 12 > tables play a > > howell this is a New Zealand movement, one board per pair. and 10 tables play 6S made, one plays 4S and another > one reaches 6S > > after a hesitation their opponents get a shared top when > this 6S is not > > allowed because it could have been suggested, logical > alternative etc. > > > I do not agree. To play a board against the hesitators is the same > type of luck as playing against people who are unable to find 6S. My > interpretation of the results described above is this: 10 Pairs spent > the last afternoon on perfection of their bidding-system. They > acquired the ability of bidding slams which other people do not reach. > Two pairs (the one in 4 spade and the opponents of the hesitators) > preferred reading something about the laws (BLML?).In consequence they > know that it is illegal to play hesitation blackwood but they are not > able to find 6S without that. It is quite easy to disagree if one makes his own interpretation to support his opinion. In fact there is no disagreement from my side. If it is clear that this pair only could reach slam by using the hesitation Blackwood we have the easiest job in the world. The problem is that they most probably would have reached slam without the hesitation as well and now because of the hesitation, not because of their lack of quality, their opponents get a shared top. That is what happens if we hardly allow profitable alternatives chosen after having received UI. That is my 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 Thu Aug 16 23:37:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GDbjA13598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GDbdH13594 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:37:40 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:51:06 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D0D@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:51:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Schmahl [mailto:mschmahl@ptialaska.net] >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:57 PM >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? > > >I think I may have got one wrong last night. I was called as director, >and here is what happened: > >North was declarer, 7 or 8 tricks had been played, and the H8 was >face-up in front of East. > >Me: "How can I help you?" >East: "I played this card out of turn a few tricks back, now do I have >to lead it?" >Me: "Are you supposed to be on lead?" >East: "Yes." >Me: "Then it has to be led. In the future, you should call the director >when the irregularity first happens." > >End of story. > >However, on reflection, it seems that Laws 9B, 10A, and 10B tell me that >I am wrong. Additionally, I should have tried to determine whether Law >11A applied. > >My first instinct was to rule that there was not a penalty card, since >the director had not previously been summoned, but I eschewed this >instinct since I thought it was simply an emotional response. We are >trying to train the players at our club to call the director when >appropriate, and I was frustrated that they did not feel the need to do >so in a routine case like East leading out of turn. > >So, my simple question is, when is a penalty card not a penalty card? >-- Regardless of what has happenned before you arrived at the table, the H8 is an exposed card. You need to determine if it is a Major or Minor penaly card, based on how it was exposed. Unless it is a high level game I am not going to try and untangle what should have happened on previous tricks (lead penalties, etc.) -- I am just going to rule from the current trick forward. (And give my "you should have called when it happenned" lecture -- I sometimes wonder if some of my players haven't got it memorized!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 16 23:56:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GDuAN13616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:56:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GDu4H13612 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:56:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA17474; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:51:53 +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 PAA27628; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:52:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <009701c1265b$39ee9120$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:56:18 +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: Marvin L. French > Jeff Rubens of *The Bridge World* has published "Unappealing > Appeals, VI" in the September 2001 issue. > > > Like all equity enthusiasts, he overlooks the fact that my > opponents' stupidity is part of my equity in a deal. They bid > something stupid at one table, make some stupid play at another, and > then at my table break a law. Any consequent gain for me is part of > the game, not an underseved windfall. > It is true that mechanical errors are not an attractive part of the > game, and computer bridge is correct in making them impossible. > However, they are a legitimate part of face-to-face bridge, and > trying to nullify their effect is simply impossible. Sometimes > possible, usually not. I shudder to think what our local TDs would > do when faced with trying to decide on "equity" after an opening > lead out of turn. AG : IBTD. A mechanical error is usually not caused by wrong thinking (as bad plays and bad bids are), but by aspects unrelated to game skills : sticking cards, poor eyesight, poor playing conditions ... Which means that your share of equity in the case of a mechanical error is unrelated to the opp's skills. And that usually, the most equitable will be to do as if the mechanical error didn't happen. > Jeff doesn't like the fact that the Laws are applied equally to > veterans and newcomers, saying that the latter's bridge education > does not prepare them adequately. All games and sports expect > newcomers to follow the rules in formal competition. A piece touched > is a piece moved, a foot touching the line loses the point, tag all > the bases after a home run, etc. Why should bridge be an exception? AG : mainly because it is one of the rare competitive activities where participants are of all levels. To apply the same rules to everybody is easy if everybody in the game is of the same level (of skill, experience and age). In Duplicate Scrabble, you get a PP (5 points) when you miscount your points (or make another small technical mistake) for the 4th time in the same game (about 20-22 moves). Except that under-13s do not get the PP until the 6th time. BTA, Duplicate Scrabble is a game where players of all ages and skills play together. Also, at cricket, rulings of 'didn't play a shot' take into account the ability to play a shot in this particular case. > Let them play in their own games if they don't know, or won't > follow, the rules. Anyway, I believe newcomers are informally > granted considerable leeway by both players and TDs. AG : and right so ! 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 Aug 17 00:15:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GEEjk13640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:14:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GEEcH13636 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:14:39 +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 QAA20025; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:10:22 +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 QAA09229; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:11:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <009e01c1265d$ced89900$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200108152001.NAA05795@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:14:48 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan game. > > (6) I believe that if we change the Laws to restore "equity" in that > situation, then we will also need to hire bodyguards to accompany > the Directors when they go back to the table to tell the > non-offenders their scores are going to be reduced. AG : this is a non-problem. The TD, when faced with an irregularity that might require an adjusted score, will invariably say to th NOS : "play through and call me back if you fell you've been damaged". If they don't, they won't. End of the story. What did I miss ? 9) Rubens used civil law as an analogy. Well, if A and B have a > contract, and B breaches the contract but does it in such a dumb > way that A ends up gaining from the breach, is any judge going to > order A to give the money back? (Assuming that the gain didn't > come at the expense of an innocent third party.) AG : not really. If B nullifies the contract for any reason (legal or not), than pays some amount to A as if the contract still held, then the sum is to be given back. In French, we call it 'perception de l'indû'. Sure there is a similar provision in the Anglo-Saxon civil laws. 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 Aug 17 00:37:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GEa9913655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:36:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GEZlH13650 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:35:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauhpo.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.56]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA20242 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <006601c12660$2e8887a0$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:31:47 -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: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 7:38 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 00:08) writes: > > > Here is the clarification from Lille: > > "8: Footnote to Law 25B1. > > Where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature > > correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law > 27A > > to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient > bid. > > If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the > > offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B." > > IOW we are back in the 1987 Laws position, as I suspected, and South can > correct to 6H without penalty (apart from barring partner!). It seems a > curious thing for the lawmakers to do - remove this provision from L27B > (where it appears to belong) and then re-instate it with a clarification > footnote to L25B1. Did something get overlooked? I assume there's a > history behind this. > > > In the given case, by calling, LHO has already accepted the insufficient > bid. > > No. LHO passed over 5NT because he had been misled into thinking that South > had corrected a mechanical error. Regardless of why LHO called, LHO has indeed called, and that accepts the insufficient bid. If we deem that S has been misled, we can apply L21 (that was why I earlier asked if 5N constituted MI). >In any event, we are now discussing what > would have happened had the TD been called immediately after the 4NT/5NT > bid. Thank you for catching my error. In this situation, LHO would have been offered the choice of accepting 4N. If he did, the auction would procede without penalty. If not, S would have had to correct to a sufficient bid or call. My incorrect assumption was that he had already done so (5N), but the Lille clarification makes it very clear that 5N has been cancelled. So, S is free to call (except double or redouble), but partner is barred (unless both 4N and 5N were incontrovertibly not conventional...). > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > 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 Fri Aug 17 01:17:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GFH0R19929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:17:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GFFSH19560 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:15:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id AB4972A509A; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:49:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from electra.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.44]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 662EC2A4FB8 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:49:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by electra.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id 16FD4216CCD for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:51:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B7BDCEE.1030006@interia.pl> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:47:10 +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] Justice vs Equity References: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <009701c1265b$39ee9120$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: 6b170acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> Let them play in their own games if they don't know, or won't >> follow, the rules. Anyway, I believe newcomers are informally >> granted considerable leeway by both players and TDs. > > > AG : and right so ! > > Regards, > > Alain I must say that I don't like the concept of the laws being applied "informally". I would have no objections if the *written rules* for the lesser players or for lower levels of competition were different. But I don't like the situation where the rules are the same in theory and different in practice. Anyway what is going on in a local club is so different from what is happening in the world championships that I would very much like to see the existance of different Law books for different levels of game instead of pretending that it is the same game that is played in Maastricht or Bali and in the "38" club in Krakow or in Helsinki at Koistinen's club (very nice place, BTW). It isn't and it will never be. I think, OTOH, that *players* (not the TD) should be encouraged to give somme leeway to the newcomers. Krzysztof Jassem once expressed his view in the Polish "Brydz" magazine that he has very hard feelings about experts calling the TD complaining that they had been misled by some Mrs. Guggenheim's behavior; he feels that experts have such a tremendous advantage over lesser players in drawing the right conlusions from the opponents' tempo, mannerism, their level of interest in the deal etc; that further instructing the lesser players how they should behave to make sure that the expert has the full comfort in "reading" their behavior is disgusting. This is a view that I happen to share; OTOH I don't think that the TD; however sympathetic with newcomers, should ever give any "leeway" to the newcomers; he should just do his job according to the TFLB. If he feels that the newcomers were treated too harshly he may talk to the experts after the tournament I tell them not to do it again along the lines "pls don't do it again at my club". Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: http://www.rmf.fm/akcje.html?akcja=ankieta&stopka=1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 01:56:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GFtRY26510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:55:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GFtKH26506 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:55:21 +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 RAA00890; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:51:01 +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 RAA01798; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:51:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <001201c1266b$de680640$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "BLML" References: <006601c12660$2e8887a0$0200000a@davishi> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:55:26 +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: Hirsch Davis > Regardless of why LHO called, LHO has indeed called, and that accepts the > insufficient bid. If we deem that S has been misled, we can apply L21 (that > was why I earlier asked if 5N constituted MI). AG : or apply L73F2 to the 'oops' mannerism. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 02:03:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GG2uH26527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:02:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GG2mH26523 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:02:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-15.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.15]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 2418562D3A for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:59:22 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:54:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <006601c12660$2e8887a0$0200000a@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 15:32) writes: > Regardless of why LHO called, LHO has indeed called, and that accepts the > insufficient bid. It has no bearing on the issues under discussion, but, if the insufficient bid has been immediately corrected, this cannot be right. The 5NT correction will be cancelled by the TD if and when he has determined that 4NT was not a mechanical error. Only then does LHO have the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid. Your interpretation would mean that after West had passed (without comment) over 4NT/5NT, North could have bid 5H on the basis that the pass had accepted 4NT not 5NT! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 02:54:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GGsV726552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:54:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GGsPH26548 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 02:54:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7GGp0R06668; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001801c12673$8e333660$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <003a01c125b4$7fabefc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001101c12625$81805040$a366063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:43:41 -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 > > Grattan Endicott > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > > He points out rightly that mixing the two types > > of score changes (e.g., adjusted score plus a PP) > > is wrong, but then incorrectly typifies some L12 > > score adjustments as "civil law" rather than > > "criminal law." > > > +=+ I assume by "wrong" we are to understand > 'undesirable'. It is legal; Law 90 is independent > of score adjustment and a procedural penalty > is not a score adjustment. The award of a > PP where a score is also adjusted is common > practice and a well-established power of the > Director/AC. I would have no thought of > changing this. Punishment is not the purpose > of score adjustment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > "Wrong" was my shorthand for what Jeff actually wrote. His words: "Mixing the two forms in some rulings related to informational irregularities has been a major factor in player dissatisfaction and unappealing appeals. We hope to show here that such mixing is not only theoretically wrong and unproductive in practice but also unnecessary to achieve the goals of those who favor it." So, Grattan's reading of "undesirable" rather than "illegal" is the correct reading. Reading more closely, I think perhaps Jeff's idea of "mixing" was the effect of L12C2 - the worst of outcomes for the OS and the best of outcomes for the NOS, with no further action against the OS (which would be "mixing" to me). Actually I have no idea what he meant. Perhaps he wants the NOS to get their perceived equity in the deal, and the OS to be punished only with a PP, table result stands for them. But I shouldn't be guessing. We'll have to wait a month to find out. 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 Aug 17 03:04:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GH4XL26578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:04:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GH4RH26574 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:04:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7GH12R25404; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:55:55 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > In-Reply-To: <007701c12627$9cf27540$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > > > I vaguely remember from the time that I was playing in the USA that > > there where guidelines for marking the boxes. They were something like: > > > > never: once every three years > > rare: once every half a year > > frequent: once or more every month > > This scale has the problem of ignoring frequency of play. > > > If I understand you correctly, all UK players would have had to mark > > the 'frequent' box. Most players that I knew marked never as well as > > rare. > > I play primarily rubber bridge with frequent players - they would indeed > all need to tick the frequent box (and that itself would seem inadequate > - most are "baby psyches" like weaker minor, lead inhibitors, etc). > My memories of the YC (where I played occasionally up to a few years ago > was that psyches against me were about once/session at my table but I > could be wrong). David Burn, who plays far more duplicate than I, gave a > frequency close rare on this scale. I was truly amazed - I had not > realised how different the codes had become. Sadly it seems to me that > duplicate players probably are totally unschooled in the delicate art of > psyche handling - what a shame! > For instance, a double of the hoary 1x-X-1M psych is not played as penalty by most pairs of my acquaintance, but as a sort of responsive double. The ACBL, by the way, does not consider "tactical" bids (e.g., responding 2/1 with an xxx suit) or "waiting bids" (e.g., responding 2C to 1S with S-Axxxx H-xxxx D-xx C-AQ) as psychs, even though they are psychs according to the Laws' definition. 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 Aug 17 03:59:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GHxXc26638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:59:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GHxRH26634 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:59:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauhpo.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.56]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA26022 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001801c1267c$b53c1b60$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:55:57 -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: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:54 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 15:32) writes: > > > Regardless of why LHO called, LHO has indeed called, and that accepts the > > insufficient bid. > > It has no bearing on the issues under discussion, ISTM there are two cases under discussion: the actual one, and a hypothetical one where the TD was called at the proper time. In the actual case, LHO did call, and that call accepts the 4NT call. >but, if the insufficient > bid has been immediately corrected, this cannot be right. The 5NT > correction will be cancelled by the TD if and when he has determined that > 4NT was not a mechanical error. This only applies to the hypothetical case where the TD was called at the proper time, not the actual one. Once the partner of the NT bidder has called, 25A no longer applies. >Only then does LHO have the opportunity to > accept the insufficient bid. Your interpretation would mean that after West > had passed (without comment) over 4NT/5NT, North could have bid 5H on the > basis that the pass had accepted 4NT not 5NT! > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > IMO yes. If the TD was summoned prior to the N call, but after W had passed, the TD would have reverted the S call back to 4NT (unless 4NT was determined to be inadvertent), and ruled that the pass by W accepted the insufficient call. N would now be free to bid 5H. Rather tricky timing there. However, I can find no Law that prohibits the offending side from drawing attention to its own inadvertent infraction at the time that would be most advantageous. The clarification from Lille instructs the TD to cancel the premature correction, but says nothing about actions taken after the premature correction, perhaps anticipating (or at least hoping) that the TD is summoned before that point. IMO, if the TD is not given authority under the Laws to cancel an action, it must stand. L27A tells us how to rule if an action is taken by LHO after the insufficient call, so IMO that is how we must rule (unless the clarification is further clarified ;) 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 Fri Aug 17 04:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GIPVj26661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:25:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GIPPH26657 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 04:25:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from petrus ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA02810 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:17:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200108161817.UAA02810@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:21:59 +0200 To: BLML From: Petrus Schuster OSB Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? X-Mailer: Opera 5.12 build 932 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We had a similar incident last week, in Austria's largest tournament: The TD was called by declarer in the following situation: A defender had revoked with S5, corrected it immediately and was told by declarer that S5 would be a penalty card. When spades were played several tricks later, this defender followed with S8, and his partner won the trick. Declarer now wanted to know whether he could demand a spade lead, as S5 was still exposed. We decided that this defender had been damaged by declarer taking the Law in his own hands. As he did not have a chance to have his obligations explained to him by the TD in time. As he should have played S5 to the preceding trick, he should no longer have a penalty card. Therefore we "designated otherwise" as per L50 and told him to pick up S5, no lead restriction. Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 07:22:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GLLaT08834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:21:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe12.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.116]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GLLVH08816 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:21:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:18:00 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.71] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200108161817.UAA02810@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:18:10 -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 Aug 2001 21:18:00.0858 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDBD5FA0:01C12698] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? | We had a similar incident last week, in Austria's largest | tournament: | The TD was called by declarer in the following situation: | A defender had revoked with S5, corrected it immediately and | was told by declarer that S5 would be a penalty card. When | spades were played several tricks later, this defender | followed with S8, and his partner won the trick. Declarer | now wanted to know whether he could demand a spade lead, as | S5 was still exposed. | We decided that this defender had been damaged by declarer | taking the Law in his own hands. As he did not have a chance | to have his obligations explained to him by the TD in time. | As he should have played S5 to the preceding trick, he | should no longer have a penalty card. Therefore we | "designated otherwise" as per L50 and told him to pick up | S5, no lead restriction. | | Regards, | Petrus I am thinking that the TD is bridge lawyer happy. This player revokes. He then does not call the director to correct his revoke but changes his play anyway. He acknowledges his faced card is a PC. He then revokes again by not playing a PC. Now the TD rules that this player was damaged by not calling the director. It seems this protect the OS is going too far when the director is not called. If anything, revoker did gain by correcting his play. And he did so without calling the director. Even if it is justified that the lead penalty does not apply to the current trick [the one in progress when the TD was called] it certainly seems valid for the penalty to apply to a subsequent trick. One last thing. It is my take on the case that declarer's failure to call the director after the second revoke and before playing from dummy forfeits his right to a ruling that it be corrected [with a new PC]. PS. Based on the facts given I think declarer is entitled to the lead penalty option as the offender was aware of the PC. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 08:31:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GMVVW17715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:31:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7GMVQH17711 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:31:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-67-18.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.67.18] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XVcL-000LYd-00; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:27:58 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c126a2$fe117940$12437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:25:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > The ACBL, by the way, does not consider > "tactical" bids (e.g., responding 2/1 with > an xxx suit) ..... as psychs, even though they > are psychs according to the Laws' definition. > +=+ Could you expand on that, Marv? What makes such a bid a psyche? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 08:54:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7GMs4D21155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:54:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7GMrvH21122 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:53:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-13-114.easynet.co.uk [212.134.22.114]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 45BF59C1A for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:50:08 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:44:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001801c1267c$b53c1b60$0200000a@davishi> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 18:56) writes: > ISTM there are two cases under discussion: the actual one, and a > hypothetical one where the TD was called at the proper time. In the actual > case, LHO did call, and that call accepts the 4NT call. I disagree. The call 'on the table' is 5NT. Only the TD can rule that LHO's pass 'accepts' 4NT and I don't think that he will (see below). >> The 5NT correction will be cancelled by the TD if and when he has >> determined that 4NT was not a mechanical error. > This only applies to the hypothetical case where the TD was called at the > proper time, not the actual one. Once the partner of the NT bidder has > called, 25A no longer applies. Since 4NT was not inadvertent, L25A never applies! >> Only then does LHO have the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid. >> Your interpretation would mean that after West had passed >> (without comment) over 4NT/5NT, North could have bid 5H on the >> basis that the pass had accepted 4NT not 5NT! > IMO yes. If the TD was summoned prior to the N call, but after W had > passed, ... This is not the same situation. It is a new (third) situation ... > ... the TD would have reverted the S call back to 4NT (unless 4NT was > determined to be inadvertent), and ruled that the pass by W accepted the > insufficient call. N would now be free to bid 5H. > Rather tricky timing there. However, I can find no Law that prohibits the > offending side from drawing attention to its own inadvertent infraction at > the time that would be most advantageous. Surely this is not a serious suggestion. Let's summarise. South bids an insufficient 4NT, corrects quickly to 5NT with an "oops", waits for LHO to pass and immediately calls the director before her partner can bid. She now tells the TD "My 4NT was not a mechanical error and was therefore an insufficient bid and the 5NT I substituted should be cancelled. I did not call you immediately I committed this infraction because I thought it would be advantageous to wait for my LHO to pass. My LHO had the right to accept 4NT which he has effectively done by passing over my substituted 5NT bid. This leaves my partner free to respond at the 5 level." (In practice, she would no doubt put the situation more delicately, but this is what it is suggested she has the right to do.) When he had recovered from the breathtaking impudence of this suggestion, even the most tolerant of TDs should manage to cancel West's pass (L21B1 or L73F2 and possibly several more). Now, South will have to talk fast to convince the TD that she had not "infringed a law intentionally" (L72B2) and should, I imagine, count herself lucky if she avoided a PP or even worse! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 11:03:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H11hJ26088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:01:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net [195.40.1.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H11bH26084 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:01:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-138.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.138]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8000E53628 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:58:08 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:52:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick (Thu 16 Aug 2001 22:18) writes: > I am thinking that the TD is bridge lawyer happy. This player > revokes. He then does not call the director to correct his revoke but > changes his play anyway. He acknowledges his faced card is a PC. He knew he had to correct the revoke and declarer (apparently assuming the mantle of TD) told him S5 was a PC. The TD should have been called (L9B1(a)), but all four players are at fault for this failure. > He then revokes again by not playing a PC. This is not a revoke. Failure to play his MPC at the first legal opportunity was an infraction (L50D1 & L52), but then perhaps he didn't know this - the declarer (in his TD role) hadn't told him!. > Now the TD rules that this player was damaged by not calling the > director. It seems this protect the OS is going too far when the > director is not called. If anything, revoker did gain by correcting > his play. And he did so without calling the director. He had an absolute obligation to correct his revoke (L62A). If called, the TD would have told him this and would also have spelt out his obligations. In what way did he gain? > Even if it is justified that the lead penalty does not apply to the > current trick [the one in progress when the TD was called] it > certainly seems valid for the penalty to apply to a subsequent trick. > > One last thing. It is my take on the case that declarer's failure to > call the director after the second revoke and before playing from > dummy forfeits his right to a ruling that it be corrected [with a new > PC]. PS. Based on the facts given I think declarer is entitled to > the lead penalty option as the offender was aware of the PC. I would like to know why the defender failed to play S5 when spades were led. Did he just forget or did he not know he had to play it? If the latter then I think that it is highly probable that the defender was misled by a more experienced declarer, in which case justice was served by what IMO was an imaginative decision. Next time (hopefully) declarer will remember to call the TD! Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 11:39:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H1cQp26108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:38:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7H1cLH26104 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:38:21 +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 SAA03182; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:34:52 -0700 Message-Id: <200108170134.SAA03182@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:52:49 BST." Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:34:51 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Brambledown" wrote: > > He then revokes again by not playing a PC. > > This is not a revoke. Failure to play his MPC at the first legal > opportunity was an infraction (L50D1 & L52), but then perhaps he didn't know > this - the declarer (in his TD role) hadn't told him!. I haven't been following this thread, but doesn't L61 clearly say that failure to play an MPC when one is required to do so is a revoke? -- 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 Aug 17 11:54:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H1sjH26126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:54:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7H1seH26122 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:54:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7H1pER09300; Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a901c126bf$07ed8460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003801c126a2$fe117940$12437bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:43:47 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > Grattan Endicott > From: Marvin L. French > > > > The ACBL, by the way, does not consider > > "tactical" bids (e.g., responding 2/1 with > > an xxx suit) ..... as psychs, even though they > > are psychs according to the Laws' definition. > > > +=+ Could you expand on that, Marv? What > makes such a bid a psyche? ~ G ~ +=+ > This is a favorite tactic of mine, but done so seldom that partner doesn't expect it. It just seems to me that a 2/1 response on an xxx suit is a gross distortion of the honor strength usually required for a three-card suit. The definition doesn't say honor strength in the hand, just honor strength. Maybe it's not a psych(ic call), but it sure feels like one, and my opponents usually call the TD to complain about it as one. If it isn't a psych, then neither is bidding 1S with S-xxx H-KQxx D-xx C-xxxx over RHO's takeout double of partner's 1H. If the definition of psych holds that this is not a psych, then the lawmakers have (as with "convention") failed to define the term correctly. A psychic call is one that deliberately and grossly overstates the strength of the hand or the holding in the suit(s) shown by the call. 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 Aug 17 14:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H4BPA26194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:11:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H4BJH26190 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:11:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaugn7.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.231]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA18034 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:07:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001301c126d2$2e012860$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:07:48 -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: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 18:56) writes: > > > ISTM there are two cases under discussion: the actual one, and a > > hypothetical one where the TD was called at the proper time. In the > actual > > case, LHO did call, and that call accepts the 4NT call. > > I disagree. The call 'on the table' is 5NT. Only the TD can rule that > LHO's pass 'accepts' 4NT Precisely. You're still mixing up the situations. In the actual case the TD was summoned after the auction. The TD must rule that 4NT was accepted by the W pass. >and I don't think that he will (see below). > > >> The 5NT correction will be cancelled by the TD if and when he has > >> determined that 4NT was not a mechanical error. > > > This only applies to the hypothetical case where the TD was called at the > > proper time, not the actual one. Once the partner of the NT bidder has > > called, 25A no longer applies. > > Since 4NT was not inadvertent, L25A never applies! > Until the partner of the insufficient bidder has taken a call, the TD must rule on whether or not 25A applies before proceding to 25B. > >> Only then does LHO have the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid. > >> Your interpretation would mean that after West had passed > >> (without comment) over 4NT/5NT, North could have bid 5H on the > >> basis that the pass had accepted 4NT not 5NT! > > > IMO yes. If the TD was summoned prior to the N call, but after W had > > passed, ... > > This is not the same situation. It is a new (third) situation ... > Actually, it's the situation you mentioned above. S bids 4NT opps 5NT, W passes. N cannot call 5H at this point, but if the TD is summoned, the 5NT call will be changed to 4NT, W will still have passed, and it's N's turn to call... > > ... the TD would have reverted the S call back to 4NT (unless 4NT was > > determined to be inadvertent), and ruled that the pass by W accepted the > > insufficient call. N would now be free to bid 5H. > > Rather tricky timing there. However, I can find no Law that prohibits the > > offending side from drawing attention to its own inadvertent infraction at > > the time that would be most advantageous. > > Surely this is not a serious suggestion. Of course it's serious. It may be wrong, but it's serious. Note my use of the word "inadvertent". It wasn't used lightly. There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction (72B3). However, any player may do so during the auction (9A1). If a side commits an inadvertent infraction and does not immediately call attention to it, and an unanticipated situation later occurs where the OS might find it advantageous to draw attention to the infraction, why can't they? >Let's summarise. South bids an > insufficient 4NT, corrects quickly to 5NT with an "oops", waits for LHO to > pass and immediately calls the director before her partner can bid. She > now tells the TD "My 4NT was not a mechanical error and was therefore an > insufficient bid and the 5NT I substituted should be cancelled. I did not > call you immediately I committed this infraction because I thought it would > be advantageous to wait for my LHO to pass. My LHO had the right to accept > 4NT which he has effectively done by passing over my substituted 5NT bid. > This leaves my partner free to respond at the 5 level." (In practice, she > would no doubt put the situation more delicately, but this is what it is > suggested she has the right to do.) > > When he had recovered from the breathtaking impudence of this suggestion, > even the most tolerant of TDs should manage to cancel West's pass (L21B1 or > L73F2 and possibly several more). Now, South will have to talk fast to > convince the TD that she had not "infringed a law intentionally" (L72B2) and > should, I imagine, count herself lucky if she avoided a PP or even worse! > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > Let's see what would have to have happened. S has made an insufficient call, and prematurely corrected it. At this point, what is the most likely call by W? (Hint: IMO, the normal call is "Director, please"). Did S have any reason to think that this W would do otherwise? If not, forget 72B1 or 72B2 (save them for when the TD is called at the proper time, and S suddenly can stop on a dime in a contract that cannot be reached with a breathing partner). In the case at hand, S has no way to know at the time of the infraction what's about to happen. 73F2? What propriety in L73 is violated by premature correction of an insufficient call? L21 needs to be considered. The "4NT oops 5NT" may have left W under the impression that he was accepting a 5NT call by passing. Is this MI, or a misunderstanding of the Laws by W? I'd be inclined to rule 21A, no recourse. W did not call the TD at the time of the infraction, but instead elected not to call attention to the infraction and continued play. That's a conscious choice by W, and he must live with the consequences of it. PP or worse? Be serious. S had no way to predict this chain of events at the time of the insufficient bid. If it still makes you uncomfortable, try to determine the correct ruling if E brought attention to the insufficient call after W had already passed. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 16:19:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H6Iki00803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:18:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H6IeH00799 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:18:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from petrus ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20006 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:10:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200108170610.IAA20006@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:15:14 +0200 To: BLML From: Petrus Schuster OSB Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? X-Mailer: Opera 5.12 build 932 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 17.08.2001 02:52:49, "Brambledown" wrote: >Roger Pewick (Thu 16 Aug 2001 22:18) writes: > >> I am thinking that the TD is bridge lawyer happy. This player >> revokes. He then does not call the director to correct his revoke but >> changes his play anyway. He acknowledges his faced card is a PC. > >He knew he had to correct the revoke and declarer (apparently assuming the >mantle of TD) told him S5 was a PC. The TD should have been called >(L9B1(a)), but all four players are at fault for this failure. > This is the way we saw the situation. Declarer was the most experienced player at the table. I think all the players *thought* they knew what should be done, and preferred not to wait for a TD but to get on with the hand. (Of course, this is not as it should be, and they got their "You should have called me immediately" lecture.) Isn't this a typical L11A case? Without evidence to the contrary, I do assume a player to know that he has to play a PC at the first legal opportunity (and I assume he has never even heard of the existence of mPCs). But there is a difference in awareness when you are so told by the TD who will explain the Law to everyone (and might even remain at the table) as opposed to declarer saying sternly "penalty card!" without any further explanation. So, playing the S8 instead of the S5 was IMO to a large extend caused by the failure to call the TD immediately. This may have benefitted the NOS who might have known this, which is why we ruled as we did. Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 16:26:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H6QT200816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:26:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H6QOH00812 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:26:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.55]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GI78O700.19Q for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:28:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-155.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.155]) by mail4.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9i 7/854900); 17 Aug 2001 16:23:20 Message-ID: <003001c126e4$470e4100$9be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:04:44 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >Precisely. You're still mixing up the situations. In the actual >case the TD was summoned after the auction. The TD must >rule that 4NT was accepted by the W pass. I know I've already erred once in this thread**, and that Hirsch has made some useful contributions, but it seems to me that Hirsch has missed a vital point, which is ... Law 27A says that any insufficient bid is accepted if LHO calls. In this case LHO did not call over 4NT. LHO called over 5NT. Had LHO's Pass occurred between the offender's 4NT and 5NT calls, then 4NT would have been accepted. However, after the sequence of events "4NT, oops, 5NT" followed by a Pass by LHO to say that "the TD must rule that 4NT was accepted ...", as Hirsch does above, is just like this (absurd) sequence of events: South deals and says "1NT, oops 7NT". LHO Dbls with a four count (an ace). would Hirsch say that the TD must rule that Dbl "accepts the 1NT call" even though the Dbl was unrelated to the 1NT call - it was related only to the 7NTcall? Hirsch seems to have said that because West passed 5NT, his pass of 4NT stands. Thus Hirsch seems to be saying that in my latest example, 1NT by South, and Double by East would both stand. Peter Gill Australia **my earlier error was not to notice that the tiny number 6 in Law 25B1 refers to a footnote whioch changes the meaning of the previous words in that Law, changing the situation which arose in this thread. BLML posts have already demonstrated that I'm not the only one to have misread Law 25B1 in this way - its wording could surely be improved. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 16:57:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H6uct00851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:56:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H6uWH00847 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:56:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA13426; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:53:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Aug 17 08:51:26 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 <01K78GLB42QK000XYB@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:52:25 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:52:37 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:52:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B90F@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f7H6uZH00848 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- > Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! > Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: This has to be for Wodka!(especially 'stronie' sounds familiar). How much are you paid for it? Good idea and you may persist in saying that we all understand your wonderful language. 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 Aug 17 17:50:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H7mTZ00879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:48:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7H7mNH00875 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:48:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-36-183.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.36.183] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XeJK-0001qE-00; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:44:55 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c126f0$ccd67da0$b7247bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003801c126a2$fe117940$12437bd5@dodona> <00a901c126bf$07ed8460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:45:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > +=+ Could you expand on that, Marv? What > > makes such a bid a psyche? ~ G ~ +=+ > > >. The definition doesn't say honor strength in > the hand, just honor strength. > +=+ "Length (three cards....)" ? +=+ > > Maybe it's not a psych(ic call), but it sure > feels like one, and my opponents usually call > the TD to complain about it as one. If it > isn't a psych, then neither is bidding 1S > with S-xxx H-KQxx D-xx C-xxxx over RHO's > takeout double of partner's 1H. If the definition > of psych holds that this is not a psych, then > the lawmakers have (as with "convention") > failed to define the term correctly. > > A psychic call is one that deliberately and > grossly overstates the strength of the hand or > the holding in the suit(s) shown by the call. > +=+ By comparison with the announced meaning of the call. So the statement has to be linked to disclosure and to system regulations. This sucks us into the question of what powers there are to regulate system. 'The lawmakers' have a weakness that they work in committee and when they conceive a camel they deny themselves the alchemy to change it into a horse within the decennary. In the case in point it is not just the definition of 'psych' or the definition of 'convention', it is the continuum of the law that leaves something to be desired. But I am not arguing against your feelings, only remarking upon the need, at times, for regulation to find means to patch up the law. I am praying that the drafting sub- committee will be enlightened in the coming round when considering these areas of the laws. But what is light? ~ 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 Aug 17 18:31:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H8VLH00907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:31:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f29.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.29]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H8VGH00903 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:27:45 -0700 Received: from 172.138.111.214 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:27:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.138.111.214] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:27:45 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2001 08:27:45.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[7DAF8630:01C126F6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Kooijman, A." >To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity >Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:52:24 +0200 > > > > ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- > > Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! > > Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: > >This has to be for Wodka!(especially 'stronie' sounds familiar). How much >are you paid for it? I'm certain Konrad will chime in with the correct meaning, but I assume you might get a CD for filling out the survey. Making the bold assumption that Polish sounds like Russian, adding that stranitza is a webpage in Russian, I'll guess that 'na stronie' means 'at this website'. >Good idea and you may persist in saying that we all understand your >wonderful language. > >ton Ah, we get too much English on this list anyways. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 17 18:47:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H8lOj00924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:47:24 +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 f7H8lIH00920 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:47:18 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA01702; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:43:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Aug 17 10:42:04 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 <01K78KGNSRIO000Y3T@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:43:12 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:43:24 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:43:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity To: "'Todd Zimnoch'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B910@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f7H8lKH00921 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:52:24 +0200 > > > > > > ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- > > > Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! > > > Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: > > > >This has to be for Wodka!(especially 'stronie' sounds > familiar). How much > >are you paid for it? > > I'm certain Konrad will chime in with the correct > meaning, but I assume > you might get a CD for filling out the survey. Making the > bold assumption > that Polish sounds like Russian, adding that stranitza is a > webpage in > Russian, I'll guess that 'na stronie' means 'at this website'. > > >Good idea and you may persist in saying that we all understand your > >wonderful language. > > > >ton > > Ah, we get too much English on this list anyways. > > -Todd Daar ben ik het ook mee eens 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 Aug 17 19:55:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H9ree06315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:53:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H9qWH06120 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id D30662A4E28; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:43:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from electra.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.44]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 89E922A4AEA for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:43:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by electra.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id ADA6F216CD2 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:45:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B7CE6A1.9000502@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:40:49 +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] Justice vs Equity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EMID: d5530acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> To: "'Konrad Ciborowski'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >> Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity >> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:52:24 +0200 >> > >> > ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- >> > Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! >> > Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: >> >> This has to be for Wodka!(especially 'stronie' sounds familiar). How >> much >> are you paid for it? > > > I'm certain Konrad will chime in with the correct meaning, but I > assume you might get a CD for filling out the survey. Making the bold > assumption that Polish sounds like Russian, adding that stranitza is a > webpage in Russian, I'll guess that 'na stronie' means 'at this website'. !!!!! Chapeaux bas, Todd; yes, a very good guess; I'm impressed. "Stranitza" indeedmeans a "webpage" (or a "page" in a book) in Russian but "strana" in Russian (which is a lot closer to "strona" in Polish) means "a country" so you might have easily have been misled. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: http://www.rmf.fm/akcje.html?akcja=ankieta&stopka=1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 19:56:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7H9tp606322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:55:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7H9mkH05145 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:53:33 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id E0AD82A4DE9; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:43:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from electra.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.44]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 39FA12A4E47 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:43:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by electra.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id BBAC5216CCB for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:44:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B7CE685.3070500@interia.pl> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:40:21 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B910@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: f74d4acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. wrote: > > Daar ben ik het ook mee eens Co jest, nie macie dluzszych slow w tym waszym jezyku nie czteroliterowe? Konrad ----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A---------------- Nagrody do wygrania: p³yty, koszulki, etui na CD! Wypelnij krotka ankiete na stronie: http://www.rmf.fm/akcje.html?akcja=ankieta&stopka=1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 17 23:34:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HDX1a13929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:33:01 +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 f7HDWtH13925 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:32:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-51-115.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.51.115] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Xjgk-0008Z8-00; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:29:27 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c12720$a34aa760$73337bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B910@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:28:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'Todd Zimnoch' ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au> Sent: 17 August 2001 09:43 Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity > > > > > Ah, we get too much English on > > this list anyways. > > > > -Todd > +=+ Some might say too many. +=+ :-) > > Daar ben ik het ook mee eens > > ton > +=+ The good thing about English is that so few understand 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 Sat Aug 18 00:01:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HDxUZ13950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:59:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7HDxOH13946 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:59:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA08009; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:55:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Aug 17 15:54:16 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 <01K78VCSWS40000YJA@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:55:27 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:55:39 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:55:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B917@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 > > > > > > Ah, we get too much English on > > > this list anyways. > > > > > > -Todd > > > +=+ Some might say too many. +=+ :-) Goodness, sometimes the use of this medium has the same effect as putting your signature under a blank cheque. Did you know what my sentence means? > > Daar ben ik het ook mee eens > > > > ton > +=+ The good thing about English is > that so few understand it. ~ G ~ +=+ > At last somebody else defending our laws ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 00:32:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HERXE13972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:27:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7HERQH13968 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:27:27 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA27471; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:23:59 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Aug 17 16:22:19 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 <01K78WCX9RN0000YK8@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:23:47 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:23:59 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:23:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B918@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 > > > > > > Ah, we get too much English on > > > this list anyways. > > > > > > -Todd > > > +=+ Some might say too many. +=+ :-) > > > > Daar ben ik het ook mee eens It might be instructive to translate this in your English, then you understand why my words in Enlish always are in the wrong places. There am I it also agree This reminds me of a lecture during my secundary school in which the teacher Dutch told us that Dutch was the oldest language in the world. The proof was that the average length of the words in Dutch was the shortest of all languages (an evolutionary explanation so to say). 'Your' sentence above is shorter than 'mine', so my teacher might be wrong. (I am not trying to say that the subjects at the moment are not that interesting) ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 00:40:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HEb9p13990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:37:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe74.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7HEb4H13986 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:37:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:33:24 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.207] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:44:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2001 14:33:24.0183 (UTC) FILETIME=[92207E70:01C12729] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 7:52 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? | Roger Pewick (Thu 16 Aug 2001 22:18) writes: -s- | > One last thing. It is my take on the case that declarer's failure to | > call the director after the second revoke and before playing from | > dummy forfeits his right to a ruling that it be corrected [with a new | > PC]. PS. Based on the facts given I think declarer is entitled to | > the lead penalty option as the offender was aware of the PC. | | I would like to know why the defender failed to play S5 when spades | were led. Did he just forget or did he not know he had to play it? I too believe it is important to magnify the embarrassment of players :(. Isn't the only thing that might be relevant is if he knew that a PC is to be played at the first legal opportunity? | If the latter then I think that it is highly probable that the defender was | misled by a more experienced declarer, in which case justice was | served by what IMO was an imaginative decision. Next time (hopefully) | declarer will remember to call the TD! | | Chas Fellows (Brambledown) My understanding of what transpired was the basis of the ruling was that offender did not know his duty. However, he demonstrated that he knew L62 of which L50 is an integral part. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 00:50:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HEn9L14013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:49:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7HEn1H14005 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:49:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-79-147.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.79.147] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XksN-000JHo-00; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:45:32 +0100 Message-ID: <002601c1272b$450c5e40$934f063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B918@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:41:03 +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' ; Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity > > > > > > Daar ben ik het ook mee eens > > It might be instructive to translate this in your English, then you > understand why my words in Enlish always are in the wrong places. > > There am I it also agree > +=+ Well, yes, it was not too difficult. But *two* words to say 'agree'? Ah, but, I have to admit it sometimes takes more in English to 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 Sat Aug 18 00:50:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HEn9R14012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:49:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7HEn0H14004 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:49:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-79-147.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.79.147] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15XksM-000JHo-00; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:45:30 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c1272b$44077160$934f063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B918@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:35:51 +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: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Kooijman, A. ; 'Todd Zimnoch' ; Sent: 17 August 2001 15:23 Subject: RE: [BLML] Justice vs Equity > > my words in Enlish > +=+ Ah, that explains it. :-) It's the enth language. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 05:31:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HJTIU17905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:29:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe64.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.199]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7HJTBH17900 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:29:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:25:39 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.201] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:53:52 -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: 17 Aug 2001 19:25:39.0227 (UTC) FILETIME=[65D3DEB0:01C12752] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:04 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs | > Peter Gill (Wed 15 Aug 2001 13:30) writes: | | >> Brambledown wrote: | >> The TD returned to rule no adjustment, as by not calling the | >> director immediately that the 4N bid was changed, EW had | >> forfeited the right to penalise (L11A). | | > This seems to me to be an incomplete and therefore inadequate | > Director's ruling, as long as you have quoted it correctly. | > The Director may only rule this way "when the non-offending side | > may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent | > in ignorance of the penalty" (= second sentence of Law 11A). | > For his ruling to be complete, surely the Director should have explained | > how this requirement was met, before making the ruling. | | You appear to be absolutely right - I can assure you that the TD made no | such reference. | | >However, if 4NT was not inadvertent, then West could have | >accepted 5NT, with the auction continuing (Law 25B1). | | I'm not sure that West *can* accept 5NT. Certainly if this had happened | while the 1987 Laws were still in force then the 5NT bid would be cancelled. | South would then be allowed, assuming 4NT was not accepted by the LHO | (L27A), "to select her final call at that turn after the applicable | penalties have been stated, and any call she has previously attempted to | substitute is cancelled, ..."(L27B). Thus South, with a silenced partner | (L27B2), would select 6H (or possibly 5H) not 5NT. | | This provision has been removed from the 1997 Laws. I suspect, however, | that it still applies in some other guise, since this would have constituted | a significant change and does not appear to have been minuted as such. | | Chas Fellows (Brambledown) Surely, the gist of this thread is that the words of L25B1 are mangled by the accompanying footnote [undoubtedly the footnote is meaningless if LHO's call condones the subsequent call]; as L27A requires the substituted call be canceled if LHO calls [the footnote requires L27 be applied and L27A makes provision only that the original call is condoned not the subsequent] but does not say what to do about the incongruity of the order of all those calls [a] since the condoning call followed the cancelled call surely it too is cancelled thereby giving LHO another turn versus [b] the condoning call stands but [c] it does not make sense to do other than require the auction to stand where the 4N is a withdrawn call not subject to penalty. Imo it makes sense to clean up the objectives of the laws and fold L25 and L27 into the same place. Other points: It seems to me that the time to rule on inadvertency is before LHO acts [subsequent the change], and not after. If the opponents believed that the change was L25A it was their own misunderstanding [L21] to not ask for a ruling. If they had asked for a ruling and offender had lied about inadvertency there would be repercussions. But in my mind offender felt the opponents were probably due redress out of the two infractions and the director might look in to it. I think on the facts the right outcome is the table result stands . regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 05:31:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HJTGp17904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:29:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7HJT8H17896 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 05:29:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:25:36 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.201] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200108170610.IAA20006@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:20:47 -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: 17 Aug 2001 19:25:36.0601 (UTC) FILETIME=[64432C90:01C12752] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 1:15 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? | 17.08.2001 02:52:49, "Brambledown" | wrote: | | >Roger Pewick (Thu 16 Aug 2001 22:18) writes: | > | >> I am thinking that the TD is bridge lawyer happy. This | player | >> revokes. He then does not call the director to correct | his revoke but | >> changes his play anyway. He acknowledges his faced card | is a PC. | > | >He knew he had to correct the revoke and declarer | (apparently assuming the | >mantle of TD) told him S5 was a PC. The TD should have | >been called (L9B1a), but all four players are at fault for this | >failure. | | | This is the way we saw the situation. | Declarer was the most experienced player at the table. I | think all the players *thought* they knew what should be | done, and preferred not to wait for a TD but to get on with | the hand. (Of course, this is not as it should be, and they | got their "You should have called me immediately" lecture.) | | Isn't this a typical L11A case? Without evidence to the | contrary, I do assume a player to know that he has to play a | PC at the first legal opportunity (and I assume he has never | even heard of the existence of mPCs). But there is a | difference in awareness when you are so told by the TD who | will explain the Law to everyone (and might even remain at | the table) as opposed to declarer saying sternly "penalty | card!" without any further explanation. | So, playing the S8 instead of the S5 was IMO to a large | extend caused by the failure to call the TD immediately. | This may have benefitted the NOS who might have known this, | which is why we ruled as we did. | | Regards, | Petrus Absolutely. Treat contestants as children as opposed to players. Consider. From your logic an offender who invokes L62 without the director could know that his opponent may lose his rights to a PC so thereby gain. Surely it is quite possible that it is offender who could be trying to get away with something by not calling the director. But offender is indemnified. Where will the pettiness end? Now, let us say that offender returned the played card to his hand and non offender did not call the director. Then later he wanted to exercise his lead penalty option to a trick or require the returned card be played to the trick. Now it is right that the penalty be forfeited. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 06:04:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7HK3Q917933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 06:03:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7HK3KH17929 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 06:03:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from petrus ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA02093 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:55:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200108171955.VAA02093@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:59:50 +0200 To: BLML From: Petrus Schuster OSB Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? X-Mailer: Opera 5.12 build 932 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 17.08.2001 18:20:47, "Roger Pewick" wrote: >Absolutely. Treat contestants as children as opposed to players. > The way some of them behave.... :) >Consider. From your logic an offender who invokes L62 without the >director could know that his opponent may lose his rights to a PC so >thereby gain. Surely it is quite possible that it is offender who >could be trying to get away with something by not calling the >director. But offender is indemnified. Where will the pettiness end? > Shouldn't we consider *who* made S5 a PC? If it had been a defender I fully agree with what you say. But as it was declarer, he seems a lot less worthy of protection. regards Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 18 17:43:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7I7frR23939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:41:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7I7fkH23914 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:41:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-50-244.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.50.244] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Y0gQ-0007cM-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:38:15 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c127b9$0a30fc20$f4327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Roger Pewick" , "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:39:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: blml Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brambledown > To: BLML > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:04 AM > Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error > from the Brighton Swiss Pairs ----------------- \x/ ------------- Someone wrote: > This seems to me to be an incomplete and > therefore inadequate Director's ruling, as long > as you have quoted it correctly. The Director > may only rule this way "when the non-offending side > may have gained through subsequent action taken > by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty" > (= second sentence of Law 11A). For his ruling to > be complete, surely the Director should have > explained how this requirement was met, before > making the ruling. > +=+ Whence the suggestion that the second sentence is the 'only' circumstance in which the first sentence (of 11A) is to be applied? The second sentence requires it in a given circumstance; I do not see any statement that creates the suggested exclusivity. If that were the intention it could and should have been wrapped into a single statement. And where is it said that the Director is required to explain the reasons for a ruling? ~ 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 Aug 19 03:20:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7IHJD400450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:19:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7IHJ7H00446 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:19:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id 7.dd.192afc1c (4323) for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:15:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:15:30 EDT Subject: [BLML] Home again To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_dd.192afc1c.28affcb2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_dd.192afc1c.28affcb2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Back home until Bali. Haven't had time to read all the E-mail. We had a poor connection for the internet in Rio so the stuff has piled up, and the early days got erased (5th to the 10th). If anything was specifically meant for me, please repeat it. Kojak --part1_dd.192afc1c.28affcb2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Back home until Bali. Haven't had time to read all the E-mail. We had a poor
connection for the internet in Rio so the stuff has piled up, and the early
days got erased (5th to the 10th).  If anything was specifically meant for
me, please repeat it.

Kojak --part1_dd.192afc1c.28affcb2_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 Aug 19 03:45:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7IHjef00471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:45:40 +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 f7IHjTH00467 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:45:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-40-23.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.40.23] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15YA6d-000F53-00; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:41:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c1280d$5fcad9e0$17287bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , "Anna Gudge" Cc: , , , , , , , , "Richard Grenside" , , , References: Subject: [BLML] Re: Travel Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:41:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 5:36 PM Subject: Travel > Bud and I will be leaving Tampa tomorrow > evening for Brasil. We'll be at the World > Junior Teams Championships, and can be > reached there in an emergency thru > anna@ecats.co.uk. until the 18th of August. > > At least it'll keep me from antagonizing > anyone on BLML for the nonce. > > Kojak > +=+ I hope you had a good time. Both. As between you and me I regard it as the prerogative of friendship to speak plainly, and to let rip if we feel something strongly. I take no offence. Cheers, Grattan +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 19 07:53:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ILqFi10515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:52:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ILq8H10511 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:52:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcaui11.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.33]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA29843 for ; Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c1282f$861b6200$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <003001c126e4$470e4100$9be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:48:30 -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 Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >Precisely. You're still mixing up the situations. In the actual > >case the TD was summoned after the auction. The TD must > >rule that 4NT was accepted by the W pass. > > > I know I've already erred once in this thread**, and that > Hirsch has made some useful contributions, but it seems > to me that Hirsch has missed a vital point, which is ... > For convenience, I'm recopying the clarification from Lille: "8: Footnote to Law 25B1. Where an insufficient bid is prematurely substituted the premature correction is cancelled by the tournament director who then applies Law 27A to allow the LHO, if he so wishes, to accept the original insufficient bid. If he does not do so, the Tournament Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action, applying Law 27B." The problem is that this clarification does not tell us what to do about actions subsequent to the premature correction. > Law 27A says that any insufficient bid is accepted if LHO > calls. In this case LHO did not call over 4NT. LHO called > over 5NT. The TD must cancel the premature correction. We are now in a situation where S has a bid on the table, and so does W. This pretty much locks us into 27A, unless there is a legal way to cancel the W call. That's why I've been pointing to L21, which would permit doing that. However, IMO, the call by W was not based on MI from the opponents, but rather a misunderstanding of the Laws. 21A provides no recourse... >Had LHO's Pass occurred between the offender's > 4NT and 5NT calls, then 4NT would have been accepted. > However, after the sequence of events > > "4NT, oops, 5NT" followed by a Pass by LHO > > to say that "the TD must rule that 4NT was accepted ...", as > Hirsch does above, is just like this (absurd) sequence of events: > See the clarification above. The TD isn't given an option, the premature correction is cancelled. The question is what happens afterwards. > South deals and says "1NT, oops 7NT". > LHO Dbls with a four count (an ace). > > would Hirsch say that the TD must rule that Dbl "accepts > the 1NT call" even though the Dbl was unrelated to the > 1NT call - it was related only to the 7NTcall? Hirsch seems > to have said that because West passed 5NT, his pass of > 4NT stands. Thus Hirsch seems to be saying that in my > latest example, 1NT by South, and Double by East would > both stand. > > Peter Gill > Australia No, I would say that 1NT by dealer is not an insufficient call, therefore 25B1 applies, and 7NT can be accepted as legal by LHO. However, lets make it more complex: N deals: 2C-P-1NT oops 7NT-X (2NT would have been conventional, everybody heard all of the calls, all are experienced players, W holds an ace) What's the ruling under the following conditions: 1) E summons the TD. 2) S summons the TD. 3) 2C-P-1NT oops 7NT-X-P-P-P; E summons the TD before the opening lead. 4) 2C-P-1NT oops 7NT-X-P-P-P; S summons the TD before the opening lead. 5) 2C-P-1NT oops 7NT-X-P-P-P; S summons the TD after the play (down 1). 6) 2C-P-1S oops 7S-X-XX; (2S would have been conventional; W, whose ace is not in spades, summons the TD...) 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 Aug 20 04:14:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7JIDJn13361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 04:13:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7JIDDH13357 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 04:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7JI9fP10363 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004401c128da$0ab1f1a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Birmingham NABC Appeals Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:03:06 -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 There were 27 appeals in Birmingham, 9 of which appeared in the Daily Bulletins. The DBs are available for viewing on the ACBL website. All cases will be available for viewing in the "Members Only" section someday (not soon). The DB versions may be altered to some degree by the time they are printed in the casebook. Here is the Bulletin-Casebook cross-reference of case numbers: Bulletin Day Casebook 1 Wed 1 2 Wed 2 3 Thurs 4 4 Thurs 18 5 Sat 26 6 Sat 19 7 Sun 20 8 Sun 6 9 Sun 9 Linda, I wish this information could be included in the casebook. 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 Aug 20 06:44:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7JKi6b14145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 06:44:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7JKhxH14127 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 06:43:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7JKeRP09853 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005b01c128ef$1ad44be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Birmingham NABC Appeal 16 Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:39:48 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This appeal did not appear in the Daily Bulletins at Birminham Vulnerability: Both Dealer: South S- KQ1086 H- Q D- A98 C- 10752 S- J94 S- 52 H- 52 H- A10873 D- QJ63 D- 10542 C- AQ86 C- 94 S- A73 H- KJ964 D- K7 C- KJ3 West North East South - - - 1H P 1S P 2C(1) P 2D(2) P 2NT P 3C(3) P 3S P 4S All pass (1) Alerted, H+C or any maximum (2) Alerted, 10+ HCP (3) Alerted, could be natural, checks for spade fit West had asked about the first two Alerts at his next turn to call, but did not ask about the 3C bid until he was about to close the auction with a pass, partner on lead. Is it surprising that a club lead was forthcoming, defeating the contract, and N/S asked for redress? The TD changed the result to 4S making for both sides, but the AC let the result stand for N/S while accepting the E/W adjustment of -620. First, I'll say that this abominable practice of questioning an individual call, or even the entire auction, with no intention of acting and partner on lead, must be dealt with in severe fashion. It is far too common. The AC said, "the player at this point could have asked for an explanation of the entire auction, or waited until after his partner had made the opening lead." While inquiring about the entire auction is supposedly legal, L20F1 warns that L16 may apply. The AC is wrong in suggesting this option for West. What reason could West have for questioning the entire auction before East leads?? This is gross UI and West should wait until the opening lead is made. The AC considered what the most favorable result that was likely would have been absent the UI, "and determined that it was significantly more probable that 4S would still have gone down one but that it was at all probable that it would make," hence the unbalanced adjustments. They could not decide whether it was the question or the lead that was "the irregularity," so they selected the former and decided on that basis. Of course both the question and lead were irregularities, and anyway the adjustment doesn't have to reflect a probable outcome, or near-probable outcome, absent an irregularity, as this AC seemed to think. A reasonable likelihood is sufficient. Anyway, it is fairly likely that North would make 4S if the illegal club lead had not been made. I say illegal, because West's question suggested a club lead and another lead was certainly an LA, with a diamond or trump lead much more logical than the heart ace. No, the heart ace can't be led, because a "look at the dummy" is suggested by the UI. Let's get straight that questioning an individual call is okay at the first opportunity after the call has been Alerted. West could have questioned 3C, as he had questioned the two other Alerts, at his first opportunity but failed to do so. After that, I believe L20F1's requirement to question the auction, not an individual call, kicks in. That requirement, changing "call" to "auction" in 1987, was aimed at preventing just such abuses as was committed in this case. The WBFLC's opinion that violating this law is "a marginal infringement of the laws [that] should not normally attract a penalty" is a doubtful description of what is often (as in this case) an outrageous infraction. Some of the commentators thought 4S was likely to go down even after a diamond or trump lead. After ruffing a diamond, pulling trumps, and leading the queen of hearts, declarer is probably going to make his contract. East must take the first heart and lead a club, not a diamond. Declarer covers the 9 with the jack but plays low on the 4. Take it from there. Certainly 4S making is the most favorable result that was likely, at least a 1/3 chance (ACBLLC guideline), absent the illegal club lead. The AC seems to have used a more stringent criterion for the NOS's "most favorable result that was likely," a common error, and moreover allowed for the possibility of a club lead absent the UI (thinking that UI was possibly the only infraction). It is sad that most commentators did not take exception to the AC decision (but Colker, Gerard, and Stevenson did). Ron Gerard incorrectly believes that questioning individual calls in other than the Alert-Explanation process is legal per L20F1, contrasting it to L20B, which prohibits asking for a partial review of the auction. He does not condone the lead, of course, but accepts the question. There is no contrast between L20F1 and L20B, Ron. They both reflect the thinking of the lawmakers (of the time, anyway) that questioning individual calls creates too much 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 Mon Aug 20 10:29:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7K0R9f05065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:27:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7K0QuH05047 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:26:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-77.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.77]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id F09AD62EDA for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:23:21 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:17:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200108170134.SAA03182@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan (Fri 17 Aug 2001 02:35) writes: >> "Brambledown" wrote: >>> Roger Pewick wrote: >>> He then revokes again by not playing a PC. >> This is not a revoke. Failure to play his MPC at the first legal >> opportunity was an infraction (L50D1 & L52), but then perhaps he >> didn't know this - the declarer (in his TD role) hadn't told him!. >I haven't been following this thread, but doesn't L61 clearly say that >failure to play an MPC when one is required to do so is a revoke? Sorry, I stand corrected. It is curious that L52B which deals with this does not describe it as a revoke, but L61 is clear. My apologies to Roger, but of course this is just nomenclature, it doesn't alter anything. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 20 10:29:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7K0RC105066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 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 tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7K0QvH05049 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:26:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-77.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.77]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 16A8B62F4B for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:23:25 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:18:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002501c127b9$0a30fc20$f4327bd5@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott (Sat 18 Aug 2001 08:40) writes: >> Someone wrote: >> This seems to me to be an incomplete and >> therefore inadequate Director's ruling, as long >> as you have quoted it correctly. The Director >> may only rule this way "when the non-offending side >> may have gained through subsequent action taken >> by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty" >> (= second sentence of Law 11A). For his ruling to >> be complete, surely the Director should have >> explained how this requirement was met, before >> making the ruling. >+=+ Whence the suggestion that the second >sentence is the 'only' circumstance in which the >first sentence (of 11A) is to be applied? The >second sentence requires it in a given >circumstance; I do not see any statement that >creates the suggested exclusivity. If that were >the intention it could and should have been >wrapped into a single statement. Nevertheless the first sentence reads "The right to penalise an irregularity *may* be forfeited ..." not "is forfeited". The second sentence appears to specify the circumstances in which this *may* happen. If there are other circumstances in which the first sentence is to apply, how is the the TD expected to know what these are? Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 20 10:29:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7K0RFP05068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:27:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7K0R3H05061 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:27:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-77.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.77]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CA83E62D66 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:23:27 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick (Fri 17 Aug 2001 19:54) writes: > If the opponents believed that the change was L25A it was their own > misunderstanding [L21] to not ask for a ruling. This isn't good enough - the NOS haven't 'misunderstood', they've been deliberately misled. In just one session at Brighton today, there were at least a dozen occasions at our table where the bidding card apparently taken from the bidding box was not the intended one, because another bidding card had stuck to it or the player had not managed to get hold of the correct card cleanly enough. In every case it was clear what had happened and what was intended and I would not have dreamed of calling the TD - indeed the game would become intolerable if the TD were summonsed for every bidding box peccadillo. If, however, a player knows that he has made a non-mechanical error, then I believe that it should be incumbent on him to call the TD and explain what he has done. It is IMO unacceptable for a player to correct it in a manner that implies to the opponents that the initial action was a mechanical error. This I suggest ought to be regarded as an intentional infringement of a law contrary to L72B2. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 20 10:29:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7K0RCL05067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 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 tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7K0QxH05051 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:26:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-77.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.77]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6210562E02 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:23:26 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:18:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <001301c126d2$2e012860$0200000a@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hirsch Davis: (Fri 17 Aug 2001 05:08) writes: >> "Brambledown" wrote: >> I disagree. The call 'on the table' is 5NT. Only the TD can rule that >> LHO's pass 'accepts' 4NT >Precisely. You're still mixing up the situations. In the actual case the >TD was summoned after the auction. The TD must rule that 4NT was accepted >by the W pass. Can we please get back to basics. Whatever fumbles, misbids or 'oopses' preceeded it, South has eventually placed 5NT on the table. At this stage, no attention has been drawn to any irregularity. West may be well advised to call the TD, but neither he nor any other player has any obligation to do so. Whether West now passes, bids or doubles it is on the basis that South has bid 5NT. Whenever he is called, if the TD subsequently cancels the 5NT bid and it becomes replaced by a different bid, then he will cancel all subsequent calls. To suggest that West's pass has accepted any bid other than 5NT is IMO a complete nonsense. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 20 10:45:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7K0ipJ05113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:44:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.1.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7K0ijH05109 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:44:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-112.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.112]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 3FE4B1D5712 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:41:12 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:35:48 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Roger Pewick (Fri 17 Aug 2001 07:44) writes: > My understanding of what transpired was the basis of the ruling was > that offender did not know his duty. However, he demonstrated that he > knew L62 of which L50 is an integral part. Get real - I don't imagine for one moment that he knew L62 from a bar of soap. What he *did* know was that he was supposed to follow suit - for the rest it seems likely that he simply did what he was told. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 20 11:55:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7K1rwc08676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:53:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7K1roH08653 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:53:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauib7.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.103]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA30890 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:50:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101c1291a$7119f6a0$0200000a@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:50:07 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 8:18 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Whenever he is called, if the TD subsequently cancels the 5NT > bid and it becomes replaced by a different bid, then he will cancel all > subsequent calls. Please cite a Law that supports this statement. It would clear up a lot of confusion. Thanks, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 21 01:30:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KFTUB26475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:29:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7KFTNH26471 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:29:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA26999; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:22:22 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2pc10 (cerap-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.4]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA16548; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:25:44 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00bd01c1298c$e9ef0300$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7oise_Hendrickx?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7oise_Hendrickx?= To: Cc: Subject: [BLML] justification of ruling Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:29:33 +0200 Organization: ULB MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C1299D.AD34AF80" 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_00BA_01C1299D.AD34AF80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear blmlists,=20 This problem was given to me by a friend TD (no oxymoron here). Some intricated MI case happens and the TD is summoned. Sensing that the = problem will fix itself (the result will be good to the NOS), he asks = the players to go through and call him if necessary (it won't be). But = one of the parties insist that the problem be solved immediately, asks = many questions, and loses so much time in doing this that the last board = of the set becomes unplayable. The TD has to asssign an artificial score = to the deal (L12A2), which should probably be 60/40.=20 Okay, but which Law do you use to justify your decision, ie where is it = written that the player in question has done something incorrect ? L12C1 mentions 'an incorrection', thus we have to say the player against = which Law he went (see definition of 'incorrection'). L74D only speaks of tempo during bidding or play. L74A2 could apply, but is quite hazy. L74B2 does only apply to the bidding and play. Same seems to be true of = L74B4. Any ideas ? Best regards, Alain ------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C1299D.AD34AF80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear blmlists,
 
This problem was given to me by a = friend TD (no=20 oxymoron here).
Some intricated MI case happens and the = TD is=20 summoned. Sensing that the problem will fix itself (the result will be = good to=20 the NOS), he asks the players to go through and call him if necessary = (it won't=20 be). But one of the parties insist that the problem be solved = immediately, asks=20 many questions, and loses so much time in doing this that the last board = of the=20 set becomes unplayable. The TD has to asssign an artificial score to the = deal=20 (L12A2), which should probably be 60/40.
Okay, but which Law do you use to = justify your=20 decision, ie where is it written that the player in question has done = something=20 incorrect ?
L12C1 mentions 'an incorrection', thus = we have to=20 say the player against which Law he went (see definition of=20 'incorrection').
 
L74D only speaks of tempo during = bidding or=20 play.
L74A2 could apply, but is quite = hazy.
L74B2 does only apply to the bidding = and play. Same=20 seems to be true of L74B4.
 
Any ideas ?
 
Best regards,
 
       =20 Alain
------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C1299D.AD34AF80-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 21 01:56:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KFtmV26499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7KFteH26491 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:55:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-96-205.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.96.205] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15YrLR-000IwW-00; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:52:05 +0100 Message-ID: <009a01c12990$0f55df80$cd60063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <001101c1291a$7119f6a0$0200000a@davishi> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:49:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: 20 August 2001 02:50 Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brambledown" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 8:18 PM > Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error > from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > > > Whenever he is called, if the TD subsequently > > cancels the 5NT bid and it becomes replaced > > by a different bid, then he will cancel all > > subsequent calls. > > Please cite a Law that supports this statement. > It would clear up a lot of confusion. > +=+ I think the reference was to Law 16C possibly. It is not so much a case of cancelling subsequent calls as of offering the opportunity to change them. --------------------------------------------------------------------- On another tack, I went back to the 1985/6 file to look at what we were saying about Law 11. The whole discussion surrounded the question of wordless communication betwen knowledgeable partners, and Edgar's concern that we should not legislate what we cannot enforce. Not a word about 11A. However, if we did not think it a problem (!) it was on the basis, IMO, that the first sentence created power and the second sentence required it should be applied in given circumstances whilst leaving its other use for the Director to decide. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Interestingly, and extraneous to this thread, there is also a handwritten note from Edgar: "Do you notice that in the new Proprieties, second draft (Law 73F2) we have eliminated the question of intent, as you suggested (the heading is an error)?" and my notes (Sep '86) of the Miami meetings include this: " 'Adjusted score' - in the case of an 'assigned score' (see distinction from 'artificial score') the interpretation of the law is to permit of balancing between various likelihoods of outcome, as the EBU does, where the resources are sophisticated - whilst encouraging less equipped Directors, in clubs particularly, to abide by 'the literal meaning of the words'. " ~ 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 Aug 21 01:56:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KFtln26498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:55:47 +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 f7KFtdH26490 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 01:55:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-96-205.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.96.205] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15YrLP-000IwW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:52:04 +0100 Message-ID: <009901c12990$0e728460$cd60063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B909@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3B7BB95F.9FA83DE@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 12:15:27 +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: 16 August 2001 13:15 Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity > >. Good luck if you play hesitation blackwood > against someone who does not know the law. > +=+ Or who have no chance in the competition and just want to go home. ~ 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 Aug 21 02:33:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KGX3026536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:33:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from adansonia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-14.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7KGWvH26532 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:32:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by adansonia.wanadoo.fr; 20 Aug 2001 18:29:19 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.249.226.99) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 20 Aug 2001 18:29:10 +0200 Message-ID: <000e01c12995$24cc01a0$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7oise_Hendrickx?= , References: <00bd01c1298c$e9ef0300$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] justification of ruling Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:28:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C129A5.E78B6720" 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_000B_01C129A5.E78B6720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Do you like L90B8 "failure to comply promptly (...) with any instruction = of the director? He ask the play to go on, so it's simple, don't you think? Kenavo, Olivier. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Fran=E7oise Hendrickx=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Cc: pitchounours@hotmail.com=20 Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 5:29 PM Subject: [BLML] justification of ruling Dear blmlists,=20 This problem was given to me by a friend TD (no oxymoron here). Some intricated MI case happens and the TD is summoned. Sensing that = the problem will fix itself (the result will be good to the NOS), he = asks the players to go through and call him if necessary (it won't be). = But one of the parties insist that the problem be solved immediately, = asks many questions, and loses so much time in doing this that the last = board of the set becomes unplayable. The TD has to asssign an artificial = score to the deal (L12A2), which should probably be 60/40.=20 Okay, but which Law do you use to justify your decision, ie where is = it written that the player in question has done something incorrect ? L12C1 mentions 'an incorrection', thus we have to say the player = against which Law he went (see definition of 'incorrection'). L74D only speaks of tempo during bidding or play. L74A2 could apply, but is quite hazy. L74B2 does only apply to the bidding and play. Same seems to be true = of L74B4. Any ideas ? Best regards, Alain ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C129A5.E78B6720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
Do you like L90B8 "failure to comply = promptly (...)=20 with any instruction of the director?
He ask the play to go on, so it's = simple, don't you=20 think?
Kenavo,
Olivier.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Fran=E7oise Hendrickx
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Cc: pitchounours@hotmail.com
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 = 5:29=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] justification = of=20 ruling

Dear blmlists,
 
This problem was given to me by a = friend TD (no=20 oxymoron here).
Some intricated MI case happens and = the TD is=20 summoned. Sensing that the problem will fix itself (the result will be = good to=20 the NOS), he asks the players to go through and call him if necessary = (it=20 won't be). But one of the parties insist that the problem be solved=20 immediately, asks many questions, and loses so much time in doing this = that=20 the last board of the set becomes unplayable. The TD has to asssign an = artificial score to the deal (L12A2), which should probably be 60/40.=20
Okay, but which Law do you use to = justify your=20 decision, ie where is it written that the player in question has done=20 something incorrect ?
L12C1 mentions 'an incorrection', = thus we have to=20 say the player against which Law he went (see definition of=20 'incorrection').
 
L74D only speaks of tempo during = bidding or=20 play.
L74A2 could apply, but is quite=20 hazy.
L74B2 does only apply to the bidding = and play.=20 Same seems to be true of L74B4.
 
Any ideas ?
 
Best regards,
 
        = Alain
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C129A5.E78B6720-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 21 02:51:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KGplN26553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:51:47 +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 (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7KGpLH26549 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id EB2002A50A4; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:45:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from electra.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.44]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id 8BCAE2A5074 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:45:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.interia.pl (localhost.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by poczta.interia.pl (Mailserver) with SMTP id DDAC7216CEE for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:47:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by electra.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id AB069216CD0 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3B813F4C.3000404@interia.pl> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 18:48:12 +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] justification of ruling References: <00bd01c1298c$e9ef0300$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-EMID: f0834acc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Françoise Hendrickx wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > > > This problem was given to me by a friend TD (no oxymoron here). > > Some intricated MI case happens and the TD is summoned. Sensing that > the problem will fix itself (the result will be good to the NOS), he > asks the players to go through and call him if necessary (it won't > be). But one of the parties insist that the problem be solved > immediately, asks many questions, and loses so much time in doing this > that the last board of the set becomes unplayable. The TD has to > asssign an artificial score to the deal (L12A2), which should probably > be 60/40. > > Okay, but which Law do you use to justify your decision, ie where is > it written that the player in question has done something incorrect ? > > L12C1 mentions 'an incorrection', thus we have to say the player > against which Law he went (see definition of 'incorrection'). > > > > L74D only speaks of tempo during bidding or play. > > L74A2 could apply, but is quite hazy. > > L74B2 does only apply to the bidding and play. Same seems to be true > of L74B4. > > > > Any ideas ? > > > "... five minutes to the end of the first half; Liverpool is still leading MU by one goal to nil: Giggs with the ball on the right side; what a great pass in the penalty area; Beckam in the box; what a great chance for MU! No! Owen broughts down Beckam; it's a penalty! And a yellow card for Michael Owen. A chance for MU for an equalizer. But no; Michael Owen wants the referee to read him the appropriate sections of the Law; what is the number of the Law that concerns penalty kicks; he also asks many questions about the official FIFA interpretation of Laws on yellow cards... ... it is the fifth hour of the discussion between Michael Owen and the referee; the second half of the MU - Liverpool game became unplayable. The English Football Association will have to meet on to decide if there is any Law that deals with this unusual situation; where it is written that Owen did something incorrect? For now the referee had to assign an artificial adjusted score of 2 points for MU (so called "average plus") and 1 point to Liverpool (so called "average minus"). Liverpool will probably appeal..." In every game the contestants are supposed to know the rules of the game they play. What is more important - regardless of the degree to which they are familiar with the rules they are supposed to followed the referee's insctructions. In your case, Alain, the TD told the players to play on; the player refused to do what he was told and will have to suffer the consequences L90B8 Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------- LAST MINUTE -> 2000 goracych ofert! http://turystyka.interia.pl/id/bank/minute/www/last/minute -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 21 04:43:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KIfmr29814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:41:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7KIfgH29802 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 04:41:42 +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 OAA21493 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA25919 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:38:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:38:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108201838.OAA25919@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] justification of ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Konrad Ciborowski > the TD told the players > to play on; the player refused to do what he was told and will have to > suffer the consequences > L90B8 Or L91A. (I find L91B rather tempting, but it's probably best reserved for the second offense.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 21 09:14:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7KNDUR10816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:13:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7KNDOH10812 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:13:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-20-131.easynet.co.uk [212.134.226.131]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B19B062D17 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:09:49 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:04:25 +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: <001101c1291a$7119f6a0$0200000a@davishi> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hirsch Davis (Mon 20 Aug 2001 02:50) writes: >> "Brambledown" wrote: >> Whenever he is called, if the TD subsequently cancels the 5NT >> bid and it becomes replaced by a different bid, then he will cancel all >> subsequent calls. > > Please cite a Law that supports this statement. It would clear up a lot of > confusion. This seems to me axiomatic. Try a simple example. An auction has reached say 4C by East. South now bids 7NT and West doubles. South now calls the TD and explains that he had intended to pass but the 7NT card had been left in the pass section of his bidding box (as often happens). The TD accepts that 7NT was a mechanical error and allows South to substitute a pass. You surely do not suggest that West, who has done nothing wrong, is committed to an illegal double over the pass? No such lunacy exists if, when the TD cancels 7NT, he also cancels West's subsequent action, leaving him free to take any legal action. If you need a law to peg the decision on try L21B. "A player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent". When South places the 7NT card on the table, West is entitled to believe that he wishes to play in that contract. If the TD rules that this is not the case and cancels the bid ISTM that West has been misinformed. 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 Aug 21 10:12:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7L0BsE10862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 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 mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7L0BlH10858 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:11:48 +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 WAA14642 for ; Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:17:05 GMT Message-ID: <8uEuX5AhiDg7EwhL@asimere.com> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:07:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <007701c12627$9cf27540$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> > >> I vaguely remember from the time that I was playing in the USA that >> there where guidelines for marking the boxes. They were something like: >> >> never: once every three years >> rare: once every half a year >> frequent: once or more every month > >This scale has the problem of ignoring frequency of play. > >> If I understand you correctly, all UK players would have had to mark >> the 'frequent' box. Most players that I knew marked never as well as >> rare. > >I play primarily rubber bridge with frequent players - they would indeed >all need to tick the frequent box (and that itself would seem inadequate >- most are "baby psyches" like weaker minor, lead inhibitors, etc). >My memories of the YC (where I played occasionally up to a few years ago >was that psyches against me were about once/session at my table but I >could be wrong). David Burn, who plays far more duplicate than I, gave a >frequency close rare on this scale. I was truly amazed - I had not >realised how different the codes had become. Sadly it seems to me that >duplicate players probably are totally unschooled in the delicate art of >psyche handling - what a shame! > Brighton, last board of set, about 56%, possible prize with a top. AQxx x Axx KJTxx, multi 2D on my right. 2D 2H 3D 4H going well so far P P 4S! P yum yum yum P x P P he hehe he 5D x End 800 for nothing. -- 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 Aug 21 16:31:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7L6U8X28363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:30:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7L6U2H28359 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:30:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-75-177.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.75.177] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15Z4zX-00048e-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:26:24 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c12a0a$8266cfa0$b14b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Only the brave Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:24:26 +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; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7L6mnf11737 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:48:49 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:48 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <001501c125ca$39d3fc20$6a027ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Tim wrote: > > > Realistically one might expect a psyche on around one hand in 20 in > decent > > company. > > Really? I play quite a lot of bridge in what I, at any rate, would > regard as decent company. At a club duplicate on Monday night an > opponent opened 1S in first seat at green on a 3-2-3-5 one count. This > is the *only* psychic bid that has occurred at my table in the year > 2001. Perhaps the knowledge that I am a member of our Laws Committee has > a dampening effect on the imagination of my opponents - but I would > describe a figure of one in 20 as ridiculously high. Andrew Abelson tells me he psyched 1D against you on a ??6? seven count within the last few days - so the last week must have been exceptional:-). I'm not considered a frequent psycher at rubber bridge but when playing duplicate (good nights at YC or Acol) I very seldom get through a whole session without meeting or making one. I admit I'm not in a good position to draw accurate conclusions. 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 Aug 21 23:39:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LDclF29269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:38:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7LDcgH29264 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:38:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.70.225] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #9) id 15ZBgQ-0005lp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:35:06 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c12a46$11f794c0$e1467ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:34:55 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk TWM wrote: > Andrew Abelson tells me he psyched 1D against you on a ??6? seven count > within the last few days - so the last week must have been exceptional:-). Opening one diamond in third position on a six-card suit and a seven count is not a psyche. Nor is it possible to tell from Abelson's bidding whether he is deliberately attempting to misrepresent his hand, or merely making what he thinks is the right bid. 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 Aug 22 00:13:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LECnH29311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:12:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7LECbH29298 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:12:37 +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 15ZCD9-000KpQ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:08:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:06:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disputed sigh in Skovde References: <200108112049.QAA21980@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200108112049.QAA21980@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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes >> From: David Stevenson >> In other words, do you adjust for an OS using as part of your >> adjustment an infraction *by the other side*? >This is an interesting question, all right. I'm not sure there is a >clear answer. The Laws offer no explicit guidance on multiple >infractions, as we have noticed before. > >Nevertheless, I wonder whether we can make progress by considering the >second infraction to be "irrational, wild, or gambling" or at least the >legal equivalent. If we do that, we will sometimes, but not always, >deny redress for the first infraction. The standard example is NS use >UI to bid a slam, which should go down, but EW revoke (an infraction!) >to let it make. I believe the standard ruling is that EW keep their >table score, but NS have their score adjusted to a game contract making >12 tricks. (There has been some disagreement on exactly what the >ruling ought to be, but I _think_ the above is the consensus answer. >Correction welcome.) This was what I was discussing with Krister Grohs [the chances I have spelt his name correctly is minimal, especially as I think the o should have an umlaut]. we felt that while this was not an IWoG case that the position was analogous so should be treated similarly, ie by a split score, denying redress for N/S for the E/W infraction because of hteir subsequent infraction. >In David's case, I think the principle is of interest, the actual hand is too complicated to be worthwhile. >Another approach altogether is to try to figure out the matchpoints or >IMPs won or lost by play and by the infractions, then subtract the ones >gained by infractions from each side's score. The WBF approach seems to be this for IWoG. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 22 00:13:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LECnN29310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:12:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7LECZH29297 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:12:36 +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 15ZCD9-000NiG-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:09:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:18:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs References: <200108151407.KAA05322@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 >Steve Willner (Wed 15 Aug 2001 15:08) writes: > >>> Brambledown wrote: >>> If she is adjudged to have 'no >>> demonstrable bridge reason' for the hesitation, then, as Rik Terveen has >>> pointed out, L72F2 should be applied. >> >>Yes again. However, the TD has ruled that misconduct by the other side >>(concealing the play from dummy) was responsible for North's delay. I really think that you might re-consider slightly your approach to posting. Of course it is jolly fun to pour scorn on the actions of TDs and players so as to make it clear to BLML that such people are liars and incompetents. >The TD did not suggest misconduct by dummy, although you may say that this >is implicit in his ruling. The TD ruled that there was misconduct by dummy. > The bidding box in question is North's, so that >if it is so badly placed that she cannot see dummy's normally played cards, >she is the architect of her own misfortune. That is not correct. If the card is in the wrong position then dummy could request it be righted. There was no need for him to play a card in such a position that it could not be seen. > If OTOH the bidding box is >correctly placed, it would IMO require a quite extraordinary placing of a >played card for North's view of it to be hidden by the bidding box. All sorts of things happen at a bridge table, many of them seemingly very unlikely. Scorn does not mean that the TDs ruling of facts was wrong nor that the player's statement of what happened was incorrect. > So >dummy, whose supersonic hearing has picked up declarer's inaudible call, I am surprised if, never once in your life, you have heard something that somebody else has not heard. Such an occurrence is an everyday happening, probably happening in toto many thousands of times over a nine day bridge event. >whose speed in playing the HJ deceives the eye (or at least North's), now >places the card with millimetric precision in the shadow of North's bidding >box, at least 12 inches from its normal resting place and neither declarer >nor South raise an eyebrow! When dummy, or any other player, does something wrong, it is quite normal for players not to point it out. Despite your style, I see no reason to assume the TD got this one wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 22 00:13:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LECtR29312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:12:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7LECjH29306 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:12:45 +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 15ZCDA-000NiH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:09:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 02:25:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs References: <003501c12494$2b43ade0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <003501c12494$2b43ade0$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 >This seems to be a classic 73F2: '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). ' > >To me not paying attention to what happens at the table is not a bridge reason. >And North obviously 'could have known'. I would immediately adjust the score to >7H making, and I would not expect an appeal. I certainly would appeal. It is not automatic to rule in favour of people who have caused a problem. Not everyone hears every card played by dummy. In this case [though the original poster fails to mention it] it was pretty clear that the player concerned had failed to realise a card had been called because she only finally played a card when she discovered three people looking at her quizzically. Your presumption that a dummy who cannot be bothered to put a card in a position where it can be seen is blameless seems strange to me. If, as declarer, you wish to take advantage of RHO's reactions I strongly suggest you get a partner who does not hide cards when he plays them. But the thing I really do not like about this answer is that declarer played a classical double shot - and you are giving it to him. What do you do when you discover RHO is not attending? Easy, run the HJ and call for the TD if it loses. By the way, Rik, answer me one thing. You are in a grand slam, with Qxx of trumps, and dummy leads the knave form dummy. Do you really spend fifteen seconds before playing a small card? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 22 01:14:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LFETY03836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:14:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7LFENH03819 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:14:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-120-137-180.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.120.137.180] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15ZDAz-000GMl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:10:46 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c12a53$727050a0$b48978d5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:07:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 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: 20 August 2001 01:18 Subject: RE: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > > Hirsch Davis: (Fri 17 Aug 2001 05:08) writes: > >> "Brambledown" wrote: > >. To suggest that West's pass has accepted any > bid other than 5NT is IMO a complete nonsense. > +=+ In itself this may be so, but it is possible the action will be deemed a waiver of any penalty for a prior infraction. West is aware of the change of call and has taken no action in regard to it. No matter what the basis of the change, it was an irregularity and E/W have bid on without calling the Director. If the Director thinks E/W have waited to see whether they profit from an irregularity before deciding to call him it should cause no surprise if he employs what powers he has not to allow the players to go back. ~ 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 Aug 22 01:50:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LFod008585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:50:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7LFoWH08573 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:50:33 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7LFkuS13357 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:46:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <001f01c12a46$11f794c0$e1467ad5@pbncomputer> DB > Opening one diamond in third position on a six-card suit and a seven > count is not a psyche. Nor is it possible to tell from Abelson's > bidding whether he is deliberately attempting to misrepresent his hand, > or merely making what he thinks is the right bid. While the latter may be true:-) However, Andrew, when talking to me, used the word psyche (I imagine the partnership agreement would be 2 or 3 diamonds on such a hand). Perhaps because I don't see the word psyche as at all perjorative I would indeed class a 1D opening on a poorish 7 count a psyche when playing a point range for the bid of 10+. If you do open such hands by agreement doesn't it conflict with EBU restrictions on very light openings? Sigmund talked about > That of course only includes deliberate 'gross distortions' - not > counting opening 1C instead of 1D on 3343. To me a 1C opening on eg Axx,Axx,AKxx,xxx is clearly a psyche absent systemic agreement. OK it's a commonly used lead inhibiting psyche but the intention is, at least partially, to mislead the table as to hand content. Opening 1C on Axx,Axx,xxxx,AKx doesn't look like a psyche to me (even if playing 4 card minors) - the clubs resemble a 4 card suit more than the diamonds. I know we refer to a "gross and deliberate" distortion. For me a simple check on the "gross" part is "is another call available that is a far better systemic representation of the hand?". If you don't regard such distortions as psyches then I am a lot less surprised that you encounter psyches so infrequently. 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 Aug 22 04:51:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7LInmG00267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 04:49:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7LIngH00263 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 04:49:43 +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 OAA13553 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id OAA18669; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:45:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108211845.OAA18669@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] justification of ruling Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------=_NextPart_000_00BA_01C1299D.AD34AF80 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >Dear blmlists,=20 > >This problem was given to me by a friend TD (no oxymoron here). >Some intricated MI case happens and the TD is summoned. Sensing that the = >problem will fix itself (the result will be good to the NOS), he asks = >the players to go through and call him if necessary (it won't be). But = >one of the parties insist that the problem be solved immediately, asks = >many questions, and loses so much time in doing this that the last board = >of the set becomes unplayable. The TD has to asssign an artificial score = >to the deal (L12A2), which should probably be 60/40.=20 >Okay, but which Law do you use to justify your decision, ie where is it = >written that the player in question has done something incorrect ? >L12C1 mentions 'an incorrection', thus we have to say the player against = >which Law he went (see definition of 'incorrection'). > >L74D only speaks of tempo during bidding or play. >L74A2 could apply, but is quite hazy. >L74B2 does only apply to the bidding and play. Same seems to be true of = >L74B4. > >Any ideas ? > >Best regards, > > Alain looks like director's error, average + both sides. :-) 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 Aug 22 11:23:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7M1MB700892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:22:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7M1M6H00888 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:22:06 +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 15ZMf3-000CxH-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:18:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 02:16:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010812202048.007e0330@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> <022601c123b0$9ee7eb60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <022601c123b0$9ee7eb60$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 J. Grabiner" >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any agreement to >psyche. >But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was afraid >that their presence would encourage the practice of psyching, and >they didn't want that. I think the ACBL removed the boxes [as did several other RAs] because people could not distinguish between information that was legal for their partnership and information that was only legal for opponent's use. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 22 18:07:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7M84rV05055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:04:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7M84kH05051 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:04:47 +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, 22 Aug 2001 10:02:33 +0200 Message-ID: <003601c12ae0$eee65d40$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <003501c12494$2b43ade0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 10:03:30 +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 f7M84nH05052 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 3:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Rik Terveen writes > > >This seems to be a classic 73F2: '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). ' > > > >To me not paying attention to what happens at the table is not a bridge reason. > >And North obviously 'could have known'. I would immediately adjust the score to > >7H making, and I would not expect an appeal. > > I certainly would appeal. It is not automatic to rule in favour of > people who have caused a problem. > > Not everyone hears every card played by dummy. In this case [though > the original poster fails to mention it] it was pretty clear that the > player concerned had failed to realise a card had been called because > she only finally played a card when she discovered three people looking > at her quizzically. > > Your presumption that a dummy who cannot be bothered to put a card in > a position where it can be seen is blameless seems strange to me. If, > as declarer, you wish to take advantage of RHO's reactions I strongly > suggest you get a partner who does not hide cards when he plays them. If it is actually true that dummy was hiding the played card(!?!), the whole case becomes a different story. The story will also be different when the dummy says that it was pretty clear that she didn't realize (I apologize for my American spelling) a card had been played (or that someone was giving her a cup of coffee for that matter). After all, declarer draws inferences at his own risk. But, if it was not clear at the time that she hadn't seen the card played and she would have seen the card if she only had paid attention then I am on declarer's side. > > But the thing I really do not like about this answer is that declarer > played a classical double shot - and you are giving it to him. What do > you do when you discover RHO is not attending? Easy, run the HJ and > call for the TD if it loses. > There is nothing illegal about getting a good score by calling the TD after an opponent's infraction. If, it is clear to everybody that RHO is not attending, you can run the jack, call the TD, but he won't adjust since you draw inferences at your own risk. > By the way, Rik, answer me one thing. You are in a grand slam, with > Qxx of trumps, and dummy leads the knave form dummy. Do you really > spend fifteen seconds before playing a small card? I hope I don't. But I know plenty of them who do. I do agree though that most people would spend 1 s, realize that the have to play quickly or give the show away and hastily pull the first small card that they can get their thumb on. (That is if they don't revoke. ;o) I do know what some other people think about this though. I once was TD (admittedly at a low level tournament) in a case where dummy didnot mention that declarer had denied holding the trump queen, responding to RKCB. Opponents where somewhat irritated. There had been a bid earlier in the auction that was on the CC as a splinter, but both players took it as natural (as a matter of fact, it became the trump suit in question. So, before leading, LHO asked the declarer whether the explanations were correct, and after a lot of insisting (that got somewhat louder which was when it caught my attention) declarer admitted that the CC was wrong about the splinter, but right about the RKCB. (The opponents had to conclude for themselves whether he had denied the queen or not.) Meanwhile, declarer had formed a pretty strong idea that the asker did not have the trump queen. In the play, with something like ATx opposite KJ9xx, he led the jack of trump through her. When the defender played low in tempo, he went up and finessed the other way. When I was called, I decided to rule that information obtained through refusing to disclose agreements to this extent should be considered UI and I ruled against declarer, who (obviously) appealed. (I don't know whether there was a legal basis for my reasoning, but it seems fair to me.) Now it comes: He won the appeal by stating that the defender had not covered the jack or even flickered, so he got the same information in an authorized way anyway when he decided to finesse the other way. I thought that gave him 'a classic triple shot'. It seems that this AC did think that people would routinely hesitate with Qxx in trump. Does that answer your question? 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 Aug 22 20:52:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7MAoVF05155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:50:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7MAoPH05151 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:50:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA19794; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:43:20 +0200 (MEST) 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 MAA15964; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:46:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <005001c12af8$45050f20$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Rik Terveen" , "David Stevenson" , "BLML" References: <003501c12494$2b43ade0$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> <003601c12ae0$eee65d40$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:50:33 +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 ----- > When I was called, I decided to rule that information obtained through refusing to disclose agreements to this extent should be considered UI and I ruled against declarer, who (obviously) appealed. (I don't know whether there was a legal basis for my reasoning, but it seems fair to me.) AG : retaining information is an irregularity, it can (of course) harm the opponents, and everybody knows that. Apply L72B1-B2. > Now it comes: He won the appeal by stating that the defender had not covered the jack or even flickered, so he got the same information in an authorized way anyway when he decided to finesse the other way. I thought that gave him 'a classic triple shot'. > It seems that this AC did think that people would routinely hesitate with Qxx in trump. AG : it did worse : it implied that one *has* to hesitate in that case. Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 22 23:36:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7MDWmn29371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:32:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7MDWgH29358 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 23:32:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.5/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f7MDQUg18181 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:21:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] justification of ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Oops. This was meant for the list, but I sent it to Francoise directly. Sorry about that. >L74D only speaks of tempo during bidding or play. >L74A2 could apply, but is quite hazy. >L74B2 does only apply to the bidding and play. Same seems to be true of L74B4. > >Any ideas ? I would look at laws 82A and B, 88, 90 (particularly 90B8) and 91. 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/AwUBO4Ozo72UW3au93vOEQI63wCg5SUEXAOc3OaI3+DPYPlg9paAQMQAoNj5 WxsvgCcGWMeAQFqHe3i4xStC =/2CH -----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 Aug 23 02:16:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7MGE1D03197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 02:14:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7MGDtH03173 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 02:13:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7MGAHj15166 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000701c12b24$dbaab7a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200108122112.RAA06153@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010812202048.007e0330@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> <022601c123b0$9ee7eb60$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:09:38 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "David J. Grabiner" > > >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a > >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any agreement to > >psyche. > > >But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was afraid > >that their presence would encourage the practice of psyching, and > >they didn't want that. > > I think the ACBL removed the boxes [as did several other RAs] because > people could not distinguish between information that was legal for > their partnership and information that was only legal for opponent's > use. > Thank you for this lucid clarification. Still, I would like to be informed of opponents' psyching tendencies. I guess that's asking too much. 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 Aug 23 03:45:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7MHhpM19965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 03:43:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7MHhjH19942 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 03:43:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-221.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.221]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B316A62F55 for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:40:05 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:34:37 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson (Tue 21 Aug 2001 02:18) writes: > I really think that you might re-consider slightly your approach to > posting. Of course it is jolly fun to pour scorn on the actions of TDs > and players so as to make it clear to BLML that such people are liars > and incompetents. Methinks someone doth protest too much - do I detect a smidgen of personal involvement here? I started this post seeking an answer to the question "Are we really saying that as long as North convinces the TD of her good intentions, then EW have no redress?". This has been fruitful. We have discussed "demonstrable bridge reason" in L73F2 and appear to have reached a measure of agreement on it. I have never at any time accused an EBU Director of lying and I think it deplorable that you should suggest it. > The TD ruled that there was misconduct by dummy. No, he did not. This is perhaps the crux of the matter - neither of us were there, but to you West is the bad guy. If, as you say, the TD believed there was misconduct by West, he did not convey this to the players. North had never suggested that the HJ was placed abnormally, merely that she had not seen it because the bidding box was in the way. Nor did the TD say that he believed that dummy had misplaced the HJ, merely that he was satisfied as to North's explanation for her delay in playing and that was all that was necessary. >> The bidding box in question is North's, so that if it is >> so badly placed that she cannot see dummy's normally >> played cards, she is the architect of her own misfortune. > > That is not correct. If the card is in the wrong position > then dummy could request it be righted. I think you mean 'bidding box' not 'card'. We are discussing 'dummy's normally played card' here. Are you really suggesting that if North's bidding box is in her own normal line of sight that the onus is on dummy to put it right? > There was no need for him to play a card in such a > position that it could not be seen. Again, you are making this assumption - it has not even been alleged, far less established, that the HJ was misplaced. >> If OTOH the bidding box is correctly placed, it would IMO >> require a quite extraordinary placing of a played card for >> North's view of it to be hidden by the bidding box. > All sorts of things happen at a bridge table, many of them seemingly > very unlikely. Scorn does not mean that the TDs ruling of facts was > wrong nor that the player's statement of what happened was incorrect. No scorn was intended here, it was a plain statement. Just try it. Empty a standard bridge table, place a bidding box on its NW corner and a faced card on its West edge. Now see where the card has to be placed for a normally seated North player to be unable to see it. > Despite your style, I see no reason to assume the TD got this one > wrong. Your loyalty does you credit. I very much doubt that West misplaced HJ (at least not by more than a few centimetres). I think that North's bidding box was probably not ideally placed so that North's view of the card *may* have been partially obstructed. North may well not have heard declarer call for the HJ, although South conceded that she had heard it. None of this, however, explains North's failure to see West's action in playing the card. Furthermore her failure to make any comment after a 15 second delay does her cause no favours. IMO it is obvious, beyond all reasonable doubt, that North was guilty at least of inattention, which it appears to have been agreed is not a defence under L73F2. Interesting or not as all of this may be, however, none of it was the purpose of the posting. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 23 17:01:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7N70Li27260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:00:21 +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 f7N70EH27256 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:00:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id IAA26319; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 08:56:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Aug 23 08:54:51 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 <01K7GUGI1OXU00147S@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 08:55:44 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 08:55:56 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 08:55:43 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@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 > > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > Marvin L. French writes > > >From: "David J. Grabiner" > > > > >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a > > >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any agreement to > > >psyche. > > > > >But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was > afraid > > >that their presence would encourage the practice of psyching, and > > >they didn't want that. > > > > I think the ACBL removed the boxes [as did several other RAs] > because > > people could not distinguish between information that was legal > for > > their partnership and information that was only legal for > opponent's > > use. This is another example of people just drawing their own line and not reading or absorbing anything they can't use. Why don't you believe Linda Trent, who is able to give an official ACBL answer on such a matter, and told us that the boxes where useless or even worse? A player is stupid to give away his non-strategy of never psyching (and is not obliged to inform his opponents about it given the nature of the psyche) and the TD should start giving procedural or even disciplinary (following Jeff Rubens) penalties to all those entering the box 'often' even before play starts. That is not exactly what Linda said, she tried to do it more politely, but the content was the same. And that is exactly the reason why I adviced my federation to get rid of those boxes. ton Have a good time Ecats-Anna. > Thank you for this lucid clarification. Still, I would like to be > informed of opponents' psyching tendencies. I guess that's asking > too much. > > 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 Fri Aug 24 03:56:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7NHtKA18381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 03:55:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7NHtEH18377 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 03:55:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-018.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.210]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA73039 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:51:28 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:51:49 +0100 Message-ID: <01C12C04.AA64AB20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] L71 Query Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:51:48 +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 Is it true that L71 A and C say: A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a concession: A: if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. C: if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. If yes, then why have 71C? Aren't all 'normal' plays 'legal' plays? Why not 71A and 71B only? Of course I may have mis-understood the instruction to delete the last sentence of 71C. 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 Aug 24 04:09:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7NI96D18401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:09:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7NI91H18397 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:09:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7NI5Lj23555 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 11:00:18 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Marvin L. French'" > > > > > From: "David Stevenson" > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > >From: "David J. Grabiner" > > > > > > >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a > > > >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any > > > >> agreement to psyche. > > > > > > But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was > > > afraid that their presence would encourage the practice of > > > psyching, and they didn't want that. > > > > > I think the ACBL removed the boxes [as did several other RAs] > > because people could not distinguish between information that > > was legal for their partnership and information that was only > > legal for opponent's use. > > > Thank you for this lucid clarification. Still, I would like to > > > be informed of opponents' psyching tendencies. I guess that's > > > asking too much. > > This is another example of people just drawing their own line and > not reading or absorbing anything they can't use. Why don't you > believe Linda Trent, who is able to give an official ACBL > answer on such a matter, and told us that the boxes where useless > or even worse? I don't believe the able Linda Trent is a spokesperson for the ACBL. Her position is NABC Appeals Manager. She does sit in on C&C committee meetings and is acquainted with many who make these decisions, but I don't think she is quoting anything official. At the time they were removed, there was AFAIK no reason given to members (I think I would have saved it). Moreover, Linda looks to be pretty young. Wasn't this before her time? I found the boxes to be very useful, even though they sometimes weren't marked honestly. If memory serves, they were removed during the same time period that saw ACBL Director Don Oakie's anti-psych material in *The Bridge Bulletin* (February 1978). Hence my surmise, and that's all it is. I have a right to my opinion unless someone can point to documented evidence that it is wrong. Kaplan made fun of Oakie's article, saying it proclaimed that "It's all right to psych as long as you never do it." At the time, psychs were driving ACBL TDs and politicos crazy, with constant complaints from those who didn't understand that psychs are a part of the game. It seemed to me that the politicos buckled under this pressure and got psych understandings removed from the CC. Of course they had to give other reasons for doing that. It is understandable that pros, who seem to have a lot of influence in the ACBL, dislike psychs because customers can't handle them. Don Oakie was a pro, by the way. > A player is stupid to give away his non-strategy of never psyching > (and is not obliged to inform his opponents about it given the > nature of the psyche) and the TD should start giving procedural > or even disciplinary (following Jeff Rubens) penalties to all > those entering the box 'often' even before play starts. A partnership agrees that they will never psych, saying to each other, "trust my bids," and the opponents have no right to know about this special partnership agreement? Does L75A mean nothing? > That is not exactly what Linda said, she tried to do it more > politely, but the content was the same. And that is exactly > the reason why I adviced my federation to get rid of those boxes. Maybe the boxes weren't the right way to provide disclosure, but IMO disclosure of special partnership agreements, implicit or explicit, in regard to psychs must be disclosed per L75A. The current official ACBL stand on psychs reflects the dislike of them by the BoD. Psychs "against pairs or teams in contention," or "merely to create action at the table," are deemed unsportsmanlike and subject to disciplinary action. I see nothing in the Laws to support that policy (published in *Duplicate Decisions*). Meanwhile, I ask young guys who come to my table, "Do you two psych a lot?", and I expect an honest answer. 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 Aug 24 05:17:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7NJHDL20155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 05:17:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7NJH7H20133 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 05:17:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.67.94] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15Zzuv-0006wW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:13:26 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c12c07$a97820e0$5e437ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:13:13 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > Kaplan made fun of Oakie's article, saying it proclaimed that > "It's all right to psych as long as you never do it." He did it, of course, rather elegantly: Thanks for the Bulletin's clever Clarification endeavour. It's legal to psyche As much as you like, As long as you like to psyche never. The difficulty, of course, is that by definition, you cannot have any partnership agreement about psyching. The card I use in international events tells my opponents that Brian and I don't psyche very often (which is true), but that in the past we have: responded 2m to 1M with terrible hands; opened 2C (Precision) with long diamonds and a bad hand; responded 1M to a Precision diamond with fewer than four cards and fewer than five hcp. The question is: if we do any of these things again, are we acting illegally? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 06:46:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7NKjZ200174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 06:45:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.de (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7NKjTH00170 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 06:45:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15a1IT-0001zD-06; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:41:49 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.172.116]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15a1IR-0bp356C; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:41:47 +0200 Message-ID: <3B856B36.FB3D0D34@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:44:38 +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] L71 Query References: <01C12C04.AA64AB20.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: > Is it true that L71 A and C say: > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction > period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a > concession: > A: if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick > his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. > C: if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play > of the remaining cards. > If yes, then why have 71C? Aren't all 'normal' plays 'legal' plays? Why > not 71A and 71B only? > > Of course I may have mis-understood the instruction to delete the last > sentence of 71C. > > Best regards, > Fearghal. Hi, the way I read it there are different time-frames for 71 A and 71C. 79C is in effect for 71A (trick cannot be lost by any legal play). 71C is for guys and dolls who wake up after making a stupid concession and do so in time, i.e. before they make a call on the next board or before the round ends, which gives them much less time than 71 A. If they can lose the trick by being incredibly stupid (that`s legal), well, bad luck..... 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 Fri Aug 24 07:00:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7NL0gQ00198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:00:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7NL0aH00193 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 07:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA25149 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:56:51 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:57:16 +0100 Message-ID: <01C12C1E.928C6500.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] L71 Query Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:57:15 +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 As usual, writing a problem down, helps to solve it. On re-reading my question, I see that I have nearly answered it myself. I asked: Aren't all 'normal' plays 'legal' plays? Yes but not all 'legal' plays are 'normal' plays - some of these plays are 'irrational'. 71C is there to let the TD cancel a concession of any tricks that can only be lost by 'irrational' plays. Best regards, Fearghal. I asked: > Is it true that L71 A and C say: > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction > period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a > concession: > A: if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick > his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. > C: if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play > of the remaining cards. > If yes, then why have 71C? Aren't all 'normal' plays 'legal' plays? Why > not 71A and 71B only? > > Of course I may have mis-understood the instruction to delete the last > sentence of 71C. > > 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 Aug 24 09:13:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7NNCO700274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:12:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7NNCIH00270 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:12:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-51-25.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.51.25] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15a3aV-000Bs5-00; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:08:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c12c28$da3b06e0$19337bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:54:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > I found the boxes to be very useful, even > though they sometimes weren't marked > honestly. If memory serves, they were > removed during the same time period that > saw ACBL Director Don Oakie's anti-psych > material in *The Bridge Bulletin* (February > 1978). Hence my surmise, and that's all it > is. I have a right to my opinion unless > someone can point to documented > evidence that it is wrong. > +=+ I would not wish to think that you could be 'wrong'. People who tell you bluntly that you are 'wrong' you will not find the most persuasive of humankind. Nor do I know the history of the ACBL CC, so why should I think you are wrong? On the other hand I can speak first hand to the fact that the boxes were on the WBF CCs in 1985, and a year or two after that Ernesto d'Orsi revised the card and he wrote to EK saying, with some apparent satisfaction, "I have managed to retain" the boxes. When I challenged with EK the legitimacy of announcing agreements about psyching, he replied that the information was AI for the opponents but not for the pair whose CC it was. Anyway, nothing has changed. We still have boxes and there is a whole screed in the Guide to Completion, at 2.8, not written in words that are fully sensitive, in my view, to the law on the subject. Similar wording appears in the CoCs. ~ 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 Aug 24 10:01:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7O013C00310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:01:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7O00sH00306 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:00:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010823235703.KJRM8562.femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:57:03 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010823195423.007d9290@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: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:54:23 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@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 11:00 AM 8/23/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Kooijman, A." > >To: "'Marvin L. French'" > >> > >> > From: "David Stevenson" >> > > Marvin L. French writes >> > > >From: "David J. Grabiner" >> > > >> > > >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a >> > > >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any >> > > >> agreement to psyche. >I found the boxes to be very useful, even though they sometimes >weren't marked honestly. If memory serves, they were removed during >the same time period that saw ACBL Director Don Oakie's anti-psych >material in *The Bridge Bulletin* (February 1978). Hence my >surmise, and that's all it is. I have a right to my opinion >unless someone can point to documented evidence that it is wrong. The change was significantly later; I started playing in 1987, and all convention cards still had the box at that time. I think they went away on the same card as the red dot for non-standard leads. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 10:42:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7O0fOD00360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:41:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [65.162.17.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7O0fHH00356 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:41:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com-229.connectnc.net [65.162.23.229]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA98446; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:36:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <007e01c12c34$918ddec0$e517a241@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:34:42 -0400 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 Thanks, Marv, Linda does look young but she has been around a lot longer than you think!!! Linda's Mom, Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > To: "'Marvin L. French'" > > > > > > > From: "David Stevenson" > > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > > >From: "David J. Grabiner" > > > > > > > > >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a > > > > >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any > > > > >> agreement to psyche. > > > > > > > > But why were the boxes removed? My guess is that the ACBL was > > > > afraid that their presence would encourage the practice of > > > > psyching, and they didn't want that. > > > > > > > I think the ACBL removed the boxes [as did several other RAs] > > > because people could not distinguish between information that > > > was legal for their partnership and information that was only > > > legal for opponent's use. > > > > > > Thank you for this lucid clarification. Still, I would like to > > > > be informed of opponents' psyching tendencies. I guess that's > > > > asking too much. > > > > This is another example of people just drawing their own line and > > not reading or absorbing anything they can't use. Why don't you > > believe Linda Trent, who is able to give an official ACBL > > answer on such a matter, and told us that the boxes where useless > > or even worse? > > I don't believe the able Linda Trent is a spokesperson for the ACBL. > Her position is NABC Appeals Manager. She does sit in on C&C > committee meetings and is acquainted with many who make these > decisions, but I don't think she is quoting anything official. At > the time they were removed, there was AFAIK no reason given to > members (I think I would have saved it). Moreover, > Linda looks to be pretty young. Wasn't this before her time? > > I found the boxes to be very useful, even though they sometimes > weren't marked honestly. If memory serves, they were removed during > the same time period that saw ACBL Director Don Oakie's anti-psych > material in *The Bridge Bulletin* (February 1978). Hence my > surmise, and that's all it is. I have a right to my opinion > unless someone can point to documented evidence that it is wrong. > > Kaplan made fun of Oakie's article, saying it proclaimed that > "It's all right to psych as long as you never do it." > > At the time, psychs were driving ACBL TDs and politicos crazy, with > constant complaints from those who didn't understand that psychs are > a part of the game. It seemed to me that the politicos buckled under > this pressure and got psych understandings removed from the CC. Of > course they had to give other reasons for doing that. > > It is understandable that pros, who seem to have a lot of influence > in the ACBL, dislike psychs because customers can't handle them. > Don Oakie was a pro, by the way. > > > A player is stupid to give away his non-strategy of never psyching > > (and is not obliged to inform his opponents about it given the > > nature of the psyche) and the TD should start giving procedural > > or even disciplinary (following Jeff Rubens) penalties to all > > those entering the box 'often' even before play starts. > > A partnership agrees that they will never psych, saying to each > other, "trust my bids," and the opponents have no right to know > about this special partnership agreement? Does L75A mean nothing? > > > That is not exactly what Linda said, she tried to do it more > > politely, but the content was the same. And that is exactly > > the reason why I adviced my federation to get rid of those boxes. > > Maybe the boxes weren't the right way to provide disclosure, but IMO > disclosure of special partnership agreements, implicit or explicit, > in regard to psychs must be disclosed per L75A. > > The current official ACBL stand on psychs reflects the dislike of > them by the BoD. Psychs "against pairs or teams in contention," or > "merely to create action at the table," are deemed unsportsmanlike > and subject to disciplinary action. I see nothing in the Laws to > support that policy (published in *Duplicate Decisions*). > > Meanwhile, I ask young guys who come to my table, "Do you two psych > a lot?", and I expect an honest answer. > > 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 Fri Aug 24 11:47:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7O1kRl00404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:46:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7O1kMH00400 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:46:22 +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 LAA07470 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:50:18 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:32:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Unsportsmanlike To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:37:33 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 24/08/2001 11:36:17 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread *Law 12C3 for Directors*, Marvin L. French wrote: [big snip] >The current official ACBL stand on psychs reflects the dislike of >them by the BoD. Psychs "against pairs or teams in contention," [small snip] >are deemed unsportsmanlike and subject to disciplinary action. [snip] IMHO it is eminently sporting to psych against stronger (alias *in contention*) opponents. Say you are playing matchpoints, and against Berkowitz-Cohen your *a priori* expectancy on a given board is 35%. If you perpetrate an outrageous psych which has a 60% chance of a bottom, but a 40% chance of a top, you have improved your expected matchpoints on the board, and must be defined as sportmanslike. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 14:19:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7O4J2u00510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:19:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7O4IuH00506 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:18:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.5/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f7O4FFJ17075; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:15:15 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <9lnto6$v05$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <9lod3q$79p$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <3B7FCA4C.DEB825A4@nospam.netscape.net> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:14:21 -0400 To: Andy Latto From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Re: The amazing conclusion to "Checkmated answering opponent's question?" Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andy Latto writes: >Ed Reppert writes: > > > If I have no logical alternative to 4S, then choosing something else is > > not an infraction, it seems to me. "Player may not choose *from among > > logical alternatives* one which is demonstrably suggested by the UI". > > [Emphasis mine]. > >That can't be the intended meaning of the laws. Let's suppose you >open 1NT (15-17) with a balanced 16 count, and partner raises to 3. >It's clear that the only logical alternative is to pass. Now suppose >partner then says "Oops! That was stupid, I have a 21-count, and >meant to raise to 7". This information is of course UI. I'm sure >you aren't allowed to raise to 7NT, claiming that you are >not choosing *from among logical alternatives*, because 7NT was >not a logical alternative. Perhaps not, but that's what the law *says*. At least, that's what 16A says. Law 73 says a player who has UI "must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." So I'd say bidding 7NT is an infraction of Law 73 in the case you cite, but not, perhaps, of 16A. OTOH, 16A2 says "when a player has substantial reason to believe that a player who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested [by the UI]..." This is *not* the same thing as in the main text of law 16A ("may not choose amongst logical alternatives"). 16A2 says *any* action chosen over some logical alternative action, which (the action chosen) may have been suggested by UI, is illegal. 16A, in the main body, requires that the action chosen be a logical alternative itself. This is ambiguous, and perhaps should be addressed in the next revision of the laws. So I'm copying this message to blml, in the hopes that either Grattan will add it to his list of discussion topics, or will tell us he's already done so, or that he, or someone else, will explain to me just why I'm all wet. :-) 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/AwUBO4XU1r2UW3au93vOEQK4pQCgoxi7ILKpFC3vKpVMNHHkzk0MQzAAn0xU g7mV8XYvHLpZqyIgtLI/7GSj =SXCg -----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 Aug 24 16:00:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7O5xeI06975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:59:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7O5xZH06971 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:59:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7O5ttj03587 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009601c12c61$5e063700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Unsportsmanlike Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:55:19 -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: > In the thread *Law 12C3 for Directors*, Marvin L. French wrote: > > [big snip] > > >The current official ACBL stand on psychs reflects the dislike of > >them by the BoD. Psychs "against pairs or teams in contention," > > [small snip] > > >are deemed unsportsmanlike and subject to disciplinary action. > > [snip] > > IMHO it is eminently sporting to psych against stronger (alias *in > contention*) opponents. Say you are playing matchpoints, and > against Berkowitz-Cohen your *a priori* expectancy on a given > board is 35%. If you perpetrate an outrageous psych which has a > 60% chance of a bottom, but a 40% chance of a top, you have > improved your expected matchpoints on the board, and must be > defined as sportmanslike. > In American football we call a similar tactic a "Hail Mary." As well be hung for a sheep as for a goat. I would not, however, perpetrate against such pairs a psych of a type that I would not try against a peer pair. Open with zero points vul vs non-vul, not that sort of thing. 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 Aug 24 17:41:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7O7e1C18130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:40:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7O7dtH18126 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:39:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7O7aFj09789 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00be01c12c6f$62302940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20010823195423.007d9290@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:34:43 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David J. Grabiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >From: "Kooijman, A." > > > >To: "'Marvin L. French'" > > >> > > >> > From: "David Stevenson" > >> > > Marvin L. French writes > >> > > >From: "David J. Grabiner" > >> > > > >> > > >> The ACBL also had boxes for psychic frequency and a > >> > > >> place to descriube psychics even while banning any > >> > > >> agreement to psyche. > > >I found the boxes to be very useful, even though they sometimes > >weren't marked honestly. If memory serves, they were removed during > >the same time period that saw ACBL Director Don Oakie's anti-psych > >material in *The Bridge Bulletin* (February 1978). Hence my > >surmise, and that's all it is. I have a right to my opinion > >unless someone can point to documented evidence that it is wrong. > > The change was significantly later; I started playing in 1987, and all > convention cards still had the box at that time. I think they went away on > the same card as the red dot for non-standard leads. > A reliable source has told me they disappeared around 1991. So it took a while for the Oakie policy to affect the CC. In the interim psychs were discouraged by the ACBL in many other ways. I remember them being quite common in the 50s and 60s in these parts, while it has been many years since an opponent pulled one at my table, and that includes NABCs. It occurs to me now that one reason for deleting the boxes could be that both CCs of a partnership must be identical. What if one partner psychs occasionally and the other never does? I guess you could put a name under or over the appropriate box for each partner. 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 Aug 24 22:23:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCNSZ00849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OCNBH00821 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:12 +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 15aFvs-000N1C-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:19:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:16:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L71 Query References: <01C12C04.AA64AB20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C12C04.AA64AB20.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 > >Is it true that L71 A and C say: >A concession must stand, once made, except that within the correction >period established in accordance with Law 79C, the Director shall cancel a >concession: >A: if a player has conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won, or a trick >his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. >C: if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play >of the remaining cards. >If yes, then why have 71C? Aren't all 'normal' plays 'legal' plays? Why >not 71A and 71B only? I think you have this back to front. You hold AQ, and there is only the king left out, no other cards. To lose a trick to the king is legal [you could play the queen] but not normal [only the ace is normal]. So if you have accidentally conceded a trick to the king then L71A does not help you since you could lose the trick by a legal play. L71C does help. Perhaps you might consider deleting L71A rather than L71C! Anyway, this is a mixup based on attempting to change a Law to delete two separate time periods and to make them one. No doubt it will be corrected in 2007. Matthias Berghaus writes >the way I read it there are different time-frames for 71 A and 71C. 79C is in >effect for 71A (trick cannot be lost by any legal play). 71C is for guys and >dolls who wake up after making a stupid concession and do so in time, i.e. >before they make a call on the next board or before the round ends, which >gives them much less time than 71 A. If they can lose the trick by being >incredibly stupid (that`s legal), well, bad luck..... No, there used to be different time frames under earlier Law books. The rationalising went wrong when they got rid of the different time frames. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 22:23:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCN8u00803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OCMtH00759 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:22:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15aFvc-000PoC-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:19:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:41:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave References: <000701c12a0a$8266cfa0$b14b7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000701c12a0a$8266cfa0$b14b7bd5@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 >+=+ There is a possibility that we can welcome >Anna Gudge to this list. She has enquired and >I have warned her what she would be getting >into. > Who? It's that ecats-woman.............. Hehe - she'll regret it ...... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 22:23:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCN6H00791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OCMtH00760 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:22:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15aFvc-000PoA-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:19:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 01:40:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A hesitation from the Brighton Swiss Pairs 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 Brambledown writes >> David Stevenson (Tue 21 Aug 2001 02:18) writes: > >> I really think that you might re-consider slightly your approach to >> posting. Of course it is jolly fun to pour scorn on the actions of TDs >> and players so as to make it clear to BLML that such people are liars >> and incompetents. > >Methinks someone doth protest too much - do I detect a smidgen of personal >involvement here? While it is true that I have some knowledge of the matter and therefore have some idea of the veracity of the statements that you have attacked it is primarily your method of attacking them that I objected to. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 22:23:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCNS500850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OCN9H00807 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:09 +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 15aFvn-000N1O-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:19:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:58:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003801c126a2$fe117940$12437bd5@dodona> <00a901c126bf$07ed8460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00a901c126bf$07ed8460$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: "Grattan Endicott" > >> Grattan Endicott > >> From: Marvin L. French >> > >> > The ACBL, by the way, does not consider >> > "tactical" bids (e.g., responding 2/1 with >> > an xxx suit) ..... as psychs, even though they >> > are psychs according to the Laws' definition. >> > >> +=+ Could you expand on that, Marv? What >> makes such a bid a psyche? ~ G ~ +=+ >> >This is a favorite tactic of mine, but done so seldom that partner >doesn't expect it. It just seems to me that a 2/1 response on an xxx >suit is a gross distortion of the honor strength usually required >for a three-card suit. The definition doesn't say honor strength in >the hand, just honor strength. > >Maybe it's not a psych(ic call), but it sure feels like one, and my >opponents usually call the TD to complain about it as one. If it >isn't a psych, then neither is bidding 1S with S-xxx H-KQxx D-xx >C-xxxx over RHO's takeout double of partner's 1H. If the definition >of psych holds that this is not a psych, then the lawmakers have (as >with "convention") failed to define the term correctly. > >A psychic call is one that deliberately and grossly overstates the >strength of the hand or the holding in the suit(s) shown by the >call. Or understates, of course. Psyches are relative to the system being played. If you hold xxx KQxx xx xxxx when partner doubles 1H and your agreement is to *always* bid your best suit then 1S is a psyche. If your agreement is to express your opinion as to the best place to play amongst the unbid suits then 1S is not a psyche. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 22:23:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCNRb00847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OCN8H00804 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:08 +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 15aFvn-000PoA-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:19:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:53:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >> From: "David Stevenson" >> > I think the ACBL removed the boxes [as did several other RAs] >> because >> > people could not distinguish between information that was legal >> for >> > their partnership and information that was only legal for >> opponent's >> > use. >This is another example of people just drawing their own line and not >reading or absorbing anything they can't use. >Why don't you believe Linda Trent, who is able to give an official ACBL >answer on such a matter, and told us that the boxes where useless or even >worse? A player is stupid to give away his non-strategy of never psyching >(and is not obliged to inform his opponents about it given the nature of the >psyche) and the TD should start giving procedural or even disciplinary >(following Jeff Rubens) penalties to all those entering the box 'often' even >before play starts. I am sorry, I did not realise that I was required to use answers that I had not read at the time, and I was not allowed to use authorities that I had heard at the time. Look, Ton, my opinions may be wrong, I never claim otherwise, but I have been told by authorities in the past that the reason was the one I gave. Furthermore, I do not think it fair that to say that I do not believe Linda in an article I had not read at the time because when she said the boxes were useless if you read my answer I am not disagreeing with her, just giving a reason why the boxes were useless. >That is not exactly what Linda said, she tried to do it more politely, but >the content was the same. And that is exactly the reason why I adviced my >federation to get rid of those boxes. Oho. So I disagreed with something Linda did not say and I had not read? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 22:24:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCNNJ00838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f7OCN6H00799 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:23:07 +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 15aFvn-000PoC-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:19:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:44:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors 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: <006601c1244f$65d10ce0$f9267bd5@dodona> >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ This does show how completely knotted we >> are when we look at law and regulation about >> psychic calls. > >As Ton says a reminder that a restriction on agreements can't apply to >psyches is reasonable. A better example of how ridiculous we are getting >comes from a Brighton ruling. > >The auction (NS vul, EW nvul) goes something like (I may have this >rotated): > >N E S W >2C 2S 3D 3H > >2C is strong and 3D shows values. Apparently we are playing in a >kindergarten and can rule a red psyche if the 3H turns out to be based on, >shock horror, spades rather than hearts. Honestly folks if we are going >to do this in what is supposedly a top quality event we may as well just >admit that psyches are effectively illegal because they make things too >difficult for "honest" players. > >FWIW East, with 5-5 in the majors chose to pass the subsequent 4C in the >hope that they played there and then passed 5C because he feared pushing >them to a making six - both perfectly normal choices even if it hasn't >occurred to you that 3H may be psychic. If you are going to field psyches you should not be too worried that they get dealt with. The fact that you can find an argument by which the fielding might possibly gain does not make your actions legal. > EW were playing duplicate >together for the second or third time only. Note the way Tim cleverly tells the absolute truth while giving the wrong impression. E/W were perfectly aware of each others' psyching tendencies from their rubber bridge experience, were they not? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 22:31:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OCVE302478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:31:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f7OCV8H02464 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:31:09 +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 f7OCRQ354588 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:27:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010824081611.00aef9d0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 08:30:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: <000601c12c28$da3b06e0$19337bd5@dodona> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$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 05:54 PM 8/23/01, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Marvin L. French > > > I found the boxes to be very useful, even > > though they sometimes weren't marked > > honestly. If memory serves, they were > > removed during the same time period that > > saw ACBL Director Don Oakie's anti-psych > > material in *The Bridge Bulletin* (February > > 1978). Hence my surmise, and that's all it > > is. I have a right to my opinion unless > > someone can point to documented > > evidence that it is wrong. I have no clue what the actual rationale for removing the boxes (if, indeed, there ever was one) was, but, like Marv, I do not believe that the fact that it was done during the time when the ACBL, and Mr. Oakie in particular, were mounting what could only be called a rabid anti-psyching campaign was entirely coincidental. The rationale may have been little more than a vague notion that psyching, like Satan in the middle ages, was a concept so evil that one's soul could be tainted by exposure to the mere word. >+=+ I would not wish to think that you >could be 'wrong'. People who tell you bluntly >that you are 'wrong' you will not find the >most persuasive of humankind. Nor do I >know the history of the ACBL CC, so why >should I think you are wrong? > On the other hand I can speak first >hand to the fact that the boxes were >on the WBF CCs in 1985, and a year >or two after that Ernesto d'Orsi revised >the card and he wrote to EK saying, >with some apparent satisfaction, "I have >managed to retain" the boxes. When I >challenged with EK the legitimacy of >announcing agreements about psyching, >he replied that the information was AI >for the opponents but not for the pair >whose CC it was. Whatever the rationale for various NCBOs' dropping or retaining the boxes on the CC was, I cannot accept that it was based on the ridiculous premise that information which you yourself have written on your own CC might be unauthorized for you. 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 Aug 24 23:21:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ODKn802822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:20:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ODKhH02818 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:20:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.137.54] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15aGpZ-0002mQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:17:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c12c9f$099b9d20$36897ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010824081611.00aef9d0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:16:46 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > Whatever the rationale for various NCBOs' dropping or retaining the > boxes on the CC was, I cannot accept that it was based on the > ridiculous premise that information which you yourself have written on > your own CC might be unauthorized for you. On the contrary. The official position appears to me to be that although the opponents are allowed to know the extent to which your partnership makes psychic bids, your partnership itself is not. For if it did, then the bids themselves would not be psyches but part of your "system" - and, of course, subject to whatever constraints on system are permitted. It is a curious kind of doublethink, but it is more or less forced by Law and regulation. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 24 23:25:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ODP2n02836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:25:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ODOuH02832 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:24:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.137.54] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15aGtd-0003k3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:21:14 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c12c9f$a023af80$36897ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003801c126a2$fe117940$12437bd5@dodona> <00a901c126bf$07ed8460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:21:01 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >Maybe it's not a psych(ic call), but it sure feels like one, and my > >opponents usually call the TD to complain about it as one. If it > >isn't a psych, then neither is bidding 1S with S-xxx H-KQxx D-xx > >C-xxxx over RHO's takeout double of partner's 1H. If the definition > >of psych holds that this is not a psych, then the lawmakers have (as > >with "convention") failed to define the term correctly. > > > >A psychic call is one that deliberately and grossly overstates the > >strength of the hand or the holding in the suit(s) shown by the > >call. > > Or understates, of course. > > Psyches are relative to the system being played. If you hold > xxx KQxx xx xxxx when partner doubles 1H and your agreement is to > *always* bid your best suit then 1S is a psyche. If your agreement is > to express your opinion as to the best place to play amongst the unbid > suits then 1S is not a psyche. I am confused. Possibly this is because Marvin is referring to bidding 1S with the above hand after: West North East South 1H Dble ? while David is referring to bidding it after: West North East South 1H Dble Pass ? The former is undoubtedly a psyche, the latter - though a piece of foolishness - is not. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 00:14:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OEETM02877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:14:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from garfield.ecats.co.uk (garfield.ecats.co.uk [194.205.153.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OEEOH02873 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:14:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by GARFIELD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:08:43 +0100 Message-ID: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E2A@GARFIELD> From: anna@ecats.co.uk To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Only the brave Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 15:08:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am here ... keeping very quiet in such august company ! anna www.ecatsbridge.com -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] Sent: 24 August 2001 01:41 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ There is a possibility that we can welcome >Anna Gudge to this list. She has enquired and >I have warned her what she would be getting >into. > Who? It's that ecats-woman.............. Hehe - she'll regret 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 03:56:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OHtos21349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 03:55:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OHtiH21345 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 03:55:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.171.151] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15aL7f-0000Z2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:52:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c12cc5$73333600$97ab7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007e01c12c34$918ddec0$e517a241@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:51:46 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > > Meanwhile, I ask young guys who come to my table, "Do you two psych > > a lot?", and I expect an honest answer. I would be tempted to give the same answer as the Vermonter who was sitting in his rocking chair on the veranda of his home. Asked by a passer-by "Have you been sitting there all your life?", he replied "Not yet." David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQ6o21451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OKPgH21408 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:42 +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 15aNSl-000AZR-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:21:59 +0100 Message-ID: <5uvQLxOF$mh7EwY0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:16:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: The amazing conclusion to "Checkmated answering opponent's question?" References: <9lnto6$v05$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <9lod3q$79p$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <3B7FCA4C.DEB825A4@nospam.netscape.net> 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 >Andy Latto writes: > >>Ed Reppert writes: >> >> > If I have no logical alternative to 4S, then choosing something else is >> > not an infraction, it seems to me. "Player may not choose *from among >> > logical alternatives* one which is demonstrably suggested by the UI". >> > [Emphasis mine]. >> >>That can't be the intended meaning of the laws. Let's suppose you >>open 1NT (15-17) with a balanced 16 count, and partner raises to 3. >>It's clear that the only logical alternative is to pass. Now suppose >>partner then says "Oops! That was stupid, I have a 21-count, and >>meant to raise to 7". This information is of course UI. I'm sure >>you aren't allowed to raise to 7NT, claiming that you are >>not choosing *from among logical alternatives*, because 7NT was >>not a logical alternative. > >Perhaps not, but that's what the law *says*. At least, that's what >16A says. Law 73 says a player who has UI "must carefully avoid >taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." So I'd say >bidding 7NT is an infraction of Law 73 in the case you cite, but not, >perhaps, of 16A. OTOH, 16A2 says "when a player has substantial >reason to believe that a player who had a logical alternative has >chosen an action that could have been suggested [by the UI]..." This >is *not* the same thing as in the main text of law 16A ("may not >choose amongst logical alternatives"). 16A2 says *any* action chosen >over some logical alternative action, which (the action chosen) may >have been suggested by UI, is illegal. 16A, in the main body, >requires that the action chosen be a logical alternative itself. This >is ambiguous, and perhaps should be addressed in the next revision of >the laws. So I'm copying this message to blml, in the hopes that >either Grattan will add it to his list of discussion topics, or will >tell us he's already done so, or that he, or someone else, will >explain to me just why I'm all wet. :-) We have discussed this at length. Let us assume the Laws are intended to discourage actions known to be against the spirit of the Laws. Then reading a particular Law in a way that is known to be against the spirit of the Laws is not helpful. In my view choosing amongst LAs includes the action taken which you believe to be an LA and is therefore illegal given the conditions. Even if it is not it is a breach of L73C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKPqL21428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OKPeH21406 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15aNSl-000AZS-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:21:57 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:21:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs References: <002501c127b9$0a30fc20$f4327bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002501c127b9$0a30fc20$f4327bd5@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 >+=+ Whence the suggestion that the second >sentence is the 'only' circumstance in which the >first sentence (of 11A) is to be applied? The >second sentence requires it in a given >circumstance; I do not see any statement that >creates the suggested exclusivity. If that were >the intention it could and should have been >wrapped into a single statement. Maybe so. But it is still the normal interpretation of that Law which would lead to chaos otherwise. > And where is it said that the Director is >required to explain the reasons for a ruling? On every Director's course ever given. How to be a TD is not something one expects to be in the Laws. It is taught. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQDN21453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OKPiH21416 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15aNSm-000AZV-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:22:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:21:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8C6@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010901c1185f$84812360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3B653659.DBDDBECC@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010801104817.00ab4cd0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010802165323.00b09ca0@127.0.0.1> <3B6A7FB3.DB24A3E9@village.uunet.be> <000d01c11c5d$ce921160$17a401d5@pbncomputer> <3B6BA16A.C64D635B@village.uunet.be> <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <007701c11dc5$65abb840$b33d1dc2@rabbit> 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 f7OKPlH21421 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn writes >"Herman De Wael" wrote: >> Exactly the problem. >> L73D2 is not of application >> L73D1 speaks only in general terms >> L73B2 is too harsh - we don't need to prove cheating in >> order to rule, I hope >You have to prove cheating in order to rule against N/S. Why? What are you accusing N/S of? Well, I know what you are, but why? It is illegal to communicate with partner via certain methods - and, yes, that is probably cheating. It is also illegal to take insufficient care in tempo sensitive situations. Read L73D1. Now I know we usually use this for not misleading opponents, but that is not what it says. The actual wording of the vital bit of that Law is: 'However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side.' This is what we are accusing South of having failed to do, and that is not an accusation of cheating. Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : I don't know what the regulations are in Sweden, but our Belgian >jurisprudency is that, if the first card from dummy is played with undue >haste, n°3 has an absolute right to pause a reasonable amount of time (your >10 to 20 seconds match this) for a general reflection on his line of >defense, without prompting Laws 16A, 73D and 73F. This is the best defense >against those who will deliberately play hastily from dummy (see last words >from L73A2). The EBU L&EC have just made a similar determination. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQCV21452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 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 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 f7OKPjH21419 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15aNSl-000AZT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:38:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs References: <200108152156.RAA06102@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200108152156.RAA06102@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 >> From: "Brambledown" >> I'm not sure that West *can* accept 5NT. > >He can: L25B1. > >> Certainly if this had happened >> while the 1987 Laws were still in force then the 5NT bid would be cancelled. >> South would then be allowed, assuming 4NT was not accepted by the LHO >> (L27A), "to select her final call at that turn after the applicable >> penalties have been stated, and any call she has previously attempted to >> substitute is cancelled, ..."(L27B). > >Around 1997 or shortly after, BLML had a thread on the subject of >premature correction of an insufficient bid. If I recall the result >correctly, a player who corrects _to a sufficient bid_ is stuck with >that correction, even if it is not the bid he would have chosen had he >known all the rules. Whatever we may have concluded was altered by the WBFLC who gave their interpretation. A premature correction of an insufficient bid is cancelled and may not be condoned [Lille]. Furthermore, L25B may not be used to correct an infraction [Maastricht]. Brambledown writes >Hirsch Davis (Thu 16 Aug 2001 15:32) writes: > >> Regardless of why LHO called, LHO has indeed called, and that accepts the >> insufficient bid. > >It has no bearing on the issues under discussion, but, if the insufficient >bid has been immediately corrected, this cannot be right. The 5NT >correction will be cancelled by the TD if and when he has determined that >4NT was not a mechanical error. Only then does LHO have the opportunity to >accept the insufficient bid. Your interpretation would mean that after West >had passed (without comment) over 4NT/5NT, North could have bid 5H on the >basis that the pass had accepted 4NT not 5NT! That is correct. That is the problem with not calling the TD when there is an irregularity. Now, before people have a go because L25A is usually done without the TD, I know that, and use it about ten times a session myself - I am always dragging the wrong card out of the box. Nevertheless, there is a disadvantage ion not calling the TD, and this example shows it. It would be safer to call the TD for an attempt to change a call whenever that call is an insufficient bid. Brambledown writes >> Hirsch Davis: (Fri 17 Aug 2001 05:08) writes: >>> "Brambledown" wrote: > >>> I disagree. The call 'on the table' is 5NT. Only the TD can rule that >>> LHO's pass 'accepts' 4NT > >>Precisely. You're still mixing up the situations. In the actual case the >>TD was summoned after the auction. The TD must rule that 4NT was accepted >>by the W pass. > >Can we please get back to basics. Whatever fumbles, misbids or 'oopses' >preceeded it, South has eventually placed 5NT on the table. At this stage, >no attention has been drawn to any irregularity. West may be well advised >to call the TD, but neither he nor any other player has any obligation to do >so. Whether West now passes, bids or doubles it is on the basis that South >has bid 5NT. Whenever he is called, if the TD subsequently cancels the 5NT >bid and it becomes replaced by a different bid, then he will cancel all >subsequent calls. To suggest that West's pass has accepted any bid other >than 5NT is IMO a complete nonsense. I am sorry that the WBFLC say such nonsense. To be serious, the WBFLC have said it, so whether you think it nonsense or not, rulings have to be given on the basis that when an insufficient bid and a premature correction has been condoned it is the original call that is condoned. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQH621455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f7OKPqH21436 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:52 +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 15aNSv-000AZT-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:22:09 +0100 Message-ID: <3UBzlSR+Jrh7EwLl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:01:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid References: <200107252025.QAA14105@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731094355.00b11550@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010731094355.00b11550@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 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..."). In L82C the normal case is that a result *has* been obtained, so it is normal to assign a score. It is *very* rare that an artificial score is suitable after Director's error, and usually is just laziness on the Director's part. To simplify this, let me give you a theoretical example, rather than working one out. The TD hears about MI, but forgets to give the player a chance to correct. He plays in 3H+1 and says he would have bid 4H if allowed. As TD you consider this a plausible comment, but not certain. So what do you do? You give one side 3H+1, the other side 4H=. Why not? OK, you say, how about A+/A+. Why? The Law says othewrwise, and it could be totally unfair. Let us suppose 4H= is a 90% board, and 3H+1 is a 70% board. Why should you reduce one side's score? I do not know why you have made the suggestion, Eric, but I consider it deleterious to the game. Some times it will make little difference, perhaps most of the time, and other times it will penalise someone unfairly. Why not go with an assigned score as the Laws currently require? Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ 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.) +=+ Perhaps you would have no difficulty, Grattan, but in my view, if a pair is going to get a minimum of 70% of a board whether the TD rules wrong or right, to require him to accept 60% because the TD ruled wrong does not seem fair - or necessary. I think this would be a backwards step by the WBFLC. Fearghal O'Boyle writes >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. The TD error is certainly the main one. It depends really on what else has happened. If the TD gives a wrong ruling about a revoke as cited elsewhere you do not assume the revoke did not occur, but assign a score for each side giving it the best effect through the revoke. However, when there has been MI, you assign on a basis of what would have occurred absent the MI. Now, if the TD has complicated it by giving a wrong ruling, you assign with no MI and with no TD error. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQGo21454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OKPoH21430 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:50 +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 15aNSv-000AZR-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:22:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20bzNYRUKrh7Ewpm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:01:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <001401c11c5d$feb203a0$17a401d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001401c11c5d$feb203a0$17a401d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Herman wrote: > >> Well Eric, we both know that, > >> I said, I'll ask South what he was thinking of, and then >> I'll rule against him. > >> Maybe South does have a good explanation, something I hadn't >> thought of. I allow him to tell me. >> I know he won't come up with a good explanation, and then I >> need a "could have known" somewhere. > >In the context of which Law? South has committed no infraction by >passing slowly. He has not deceived an opponent in a way that he could >have known could work to his benefit. Under which Law, containing the >words "could have known", do you propose to rule against South? I am not convinced that we should be ruling against South, but if so, surely it is a breach of L73D1 which includes 'However, players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side'. No 'could have known', certainly, but I think 'variations may work to the benefit of their side' has a similar effect. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQPQ21456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OKPqH21438 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:53 +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 15aNSu-000AZS-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:22:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:30:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> <003e01c11c00$d43056c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <003e01c11c00$d43056c0$04220fa4@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 >----- Original Message ----- > There is obviously some information here of >which I am unaware. What >> action, in the name of all that is wonderful, could South possibly have >> been contemplating? 3H? 3NT? A takeout double? If you put this hand in a >> bidding competition for 25 experts, you would get 25 answers of "Pass. >> Ridiculous question." > >AG : really ? Then 25 experts out of 25 would get a ridiculous result when >holding those two hands : > > AK xxx > K10xx Qxxxx > x Axxx > QJ109xx x > >or : > > AK Qxxx > K10xx Axx > x J109x > QJ109xx Kx > >The second case can't happen ? Wait until you see my 3rd-in-hand-green >preempts ... Experts take the long view in these matters. Of course you can find a failing case for the action taken, as you can with almost any judgement action on any hand. But it is still a routine pass which experts would do in tempo. >> But one may assume (charitably) that South, taken aback by a somewhat >unexpected development in the bidding, > >AG : yes, we may. The 3C opening (rather than 1D, 1S, 1NT, 3D or whatever) >is quite unexpected. And one of South's problems is that he can guess (given >E won't have much more than AKxxxx(x) and out) that partner has about a >10-count (remember LHO passed). And there are many cases where 3NT will >fetch facing an undistinguished 10-count. > >So, you see, the pass is not as obvious as you pretended. It is quite as obvious as he said. Why the word "pretended"? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQOu21457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OKPrH21439 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:53 +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 15aNSw-000AZV-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:22:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:19:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: private opinion about Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid - References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8D7@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >> >On 31 Jul 2001, at 9:15, Eric Landau wrote: >Somewhere in 1973 a mister Eric Landau wrote a letter to the Bridge World; >together with the answer from Edgar Kaplan it resulted in one of the nicest >articles ever written about the bridge laws, subject being the >consequent/subsequent distinction when damage occurs. >We will distribute this article for the EBL-TD course so your name will be >there Eric. I'll them you are still alive, and also still owner of a club? >It is a pity BLML can't handle added files, you all should read it. No doubt I can find a niche for it on my Lawspage if you send it to me. Since I wrote the above I see it has been posted. However, the offer still stands: I would be happy to add this one. Eric? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:26:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKQPk21458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:26:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OKPjH21417 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:25:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15aNSm-000AZU-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 21:22:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:39:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs References: <003001c126e4$470e4100$9be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <003001c126e4$470e4100$9be136cb@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 >Hirsch Davis wrote: >>Precisely. You're still mixing up the situations. In the actual >>case the TD was summoned after the auction. The TD must >>rule that 4NT was accepted by the W pass. > > >I know I've already erred once in this thread**, and that >Hirsch has made some useful contributions, but it seems >to me that Hirsch has missed a vital point, which is ... > >Law 27A says that any insufficient bid is accepted if LHO >calls. In this case LHO did not call over 4NT. LHO called >over 5NT. Had LHO's Pass occurred between the offender's >4NT and 5NT calls, then 4NT would have been accepted. >However, after the sequence of events > >"4NT, oops, 5NT" followed by a Pass by LHO > >to say that "the TD must rule that 4NT was accepted ...", as >Hirsch does above, is just like this (absurd) sequence of events: > >South deals and says "1NT, oops 7NT". >LHO Dbls with a four count (an ace). > >would Hirsch say that the TD must rule that Dbl "accepts >the 1NT call" even though the Dbl was unrelated to the >1NT call - it was related only to the 7NTcall? Hirsch seems >to have said that because West passed 5NT, his pass of >4NT stands. Thus Hirsch seems to be saying that in my >latest example, 1NT by South, and Double by East would >both stand. It does not matter whether you can think of a ridiculous example, if people are going to bid on after infractions without benefit of TD they are going to have to accept the consequences, one of which is that without a TD you may only condone the original insufficient bid [WBFLC, Lille]. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:37:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKbmC21521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:37:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7OKbfH21517 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:37:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7OKXuR27047 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003501c12cdc$04f24ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007e01c12c34$918ddec0$e517a241@mom> <000d01c12cc5$73333600$97ab7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:28:59 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > Marvin wrote: > > > > Meanwhile, I ask young guys who come to my table, "Do you two psych > > > a lot?", and I expect an honest answer. > > I would be tempted to give the same answer as the Vermonter who was > sitting in his rocking chair on the veranda of his home. Asked by a > passer-by "Have you been sitting there all your life?", he replied "Not > yet." > Too far a stretch, David, although enjoyable. "Do you sit there a lot?" would get a straight answer, I think. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 06:58:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OKvke21539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:57:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OKvfH21535 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 06:57:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7OKs0R15883 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004801c12cde$d24e6740$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 13:44:13 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > If you are going to field psyches you should not be too worried that > they get dealt with. The fact that you can find an argument by which > the fielding might possibly gain does not make your actions legal. > Not referring to the deal in question, but is it not possible for one partner to figure out that the other has psyched without considering that as "fielding"? Playing with an expert first-time partner in the 60s, I opened first seat, favorable vulnerability, with zero points. The auction went: 1C-X-XX-2H; P-4H Partner had 13 nice-looking HCP. Either I had psyched or the sane-looking opponents were crazy. If he passes, I don't consider that as "fielding a psych," but merely deducing from the total auction that I could not have had my bid. Is one allowed to do that? Is the answer "Just that once, but never again with the same partner?" 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 Aug 25 08:45:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OMjK501925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:45:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OMjEH01904 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:45:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.52.189] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15aPdq-00060B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:41:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c12ced$e5428de0$bd347ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B8DC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002301c11b4b$3ceac300$c4887ad5@pbncomputer> <002f01c11b69$2fea8820$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <002401c11b6e$e5fb78e0$20907ad5@pbncomputer> <003e01c11c00$d43056c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Could have known? Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:40:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > It is quite as obvious as he said. > > Why the word "pretended"? Take care, and do not take offence on my behalf where none was intended. To "pretend" has connotations of deception in English; it has none in French, which is Alain's native language. The French word that sounds like the English "pretend" means in English no more than to "assert", to (as can be seen from the Latin root) "hold forth". I was about to give another synonym, to "claim", but thought better of it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 08:49:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OMnSk02810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:49:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7OMnMH02804 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:49:23 +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 15aPhq-0008RV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:45:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:01:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave References: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E2A@GARFIELD> In-Reply-To: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E2A@GARFIELD> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk anna@ecats.co.uk writes >I am here ... keeping very quiet in such august company ! So tell us about your cats! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 08:49:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7OMnZ802814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:49:35 +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 f7OMnRH02809 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:49:27 +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 15aPhq-0008RU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:45:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:42:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors References: <002601c12674$f53d9480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <003801c126a2$fe117940$12437bd5@dodona> <00a901c126bf$07ed8460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001501c12c9f$a023af80$36897ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001501c12c9f$a023af80$36897ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> >Maybe it's not a psych(ic call), but it sure feels like one, and my >> >opponents usually call the TD to complain about it as one. If it >> >isn't a psych, then neither is bidding 1S with S-xxx H-KQxx D-xx >> >C-xxxx over RHO's takeout double of partner's 1H. If the definition >> >of psych holds that this is not a psych, then the lawmakers have (as >> >with "convention") failed to define the term correctly. >> > >> >A psychic call is one that deliberately and grossly overstates the >> >strength of the hand or the holding in the suit(s) shown by the >> >call. >> >> Or understates, of course. >> >> Psyches are relative to the system being played. If you hold >> xxx KQxx xx xxxx when partner doubles 1H and your agreement is to >> *always* bid your best suit then 1S is a psyche. If your agreement is >> to express your opinion as to the best place to play amongst the unbid >> suits then 1S is not a psyche. > >I am confused. Possibly this is because Marvin is referring to bidding >1S with the above hand after: > >West North East South > 1H Dble ? > >while David is referring to bidding it after: > >West North East South >1H Dble Pass ? > >The former is undoubtedly a psyche, the latter - though a piece of >foolishness - is not. I seem to have misread a post. Oh well, treat mine as a standalone comment rather than a continuation then! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 09:08:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ON8X405002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:08:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ON8RH04986 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:08:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.52.189] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15aQ0K-0007mU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:04:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c12cf1$23bb4320$bd347ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007e01c12c34$918ddec0$e517a241@mom> <000d01c12cc5$73333600$97ab7ad5@pbncomputer> <003501c12cdc$04f24ca0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:04:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > Too far a stretch, David, although enjoyable. Maybe. But Brian Callaghan, my partner in serious events, would view your question as a red rag to a bull, and would determine in advance that should the opportunity arise for some baby psyche, he would certainly perpetrate it. The difficulty I have is this: given that I know the above, what ought I to disclose to you? I should perhaps say that I meant no disrespect to anyone from Vermont who might have intercepted my last post. On the contrary, I think I would have made an ideal Vermonter, for the philosophy expressed in stories about people from that state is very much akin to my own, and could very well be applied to most of the questions about the Laws of bridge that so much vex us. The same Vermonter who explained that he had not yet been in his rocking chair all his life was later hailed by another tourist, who asked which of two roads led to a particular destination. They both did, but one took in locations of breathtaking scenic beauty, while the other left nothing to admire but the highway. "They both go there", said the honest farmer. "Does it matter which one I take?" asked the tourist. "Not to me it doesn't", replied the Vermonter, and carried on rocking. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 09:50:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ONoNw07727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:50:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ONoHH07723 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 09:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010824234631.PJZV8562.femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:46:31 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010824194409.008f5c30@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: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 19:44:09 -0400 To: From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: <004801c12cde$d24e6740$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:44 PM 8/24/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Not referring to the deal in question, but is it not possible for >one partner to figure out that the other has psyched without >considering that as "fielding"? > >Playing with an expert first-time partner in the 60s, I opened first >seat, favorable vulnerability, with zero points. The auction went: > >1C-X-XX-2H; P-4H > >Partner had 13 nice-looking HCP. Either I had psyched or the >sane-looking opponents were crazy. If he passes, I don't consider >that as "fielding a psych," but merely deducing from the total >auction that I could not have had my bid. > >Is one allowed to do that? We need a definition of fielded psyches (or misunderstanding, for that matter). I would say that a player has fielded partner's action if he makes a call por play which allows for partner's action and can not reasonably deduce that partner has taken hte action given the authorized information. The most common way to avoid fielding occurs when partner makes a subsequent call which is inconsistent with the original action, such as passing a forcing bid to reveal a psyche, or bidding values he could not possibly hold to reveal a misbid or misunderstanding (you bid 2NT over partner's 1NT, and partner bids 3D; you may assume he took 2NT as a transfer to diamonds). However, you may use other authorized information in conjunction with the auction. In Marvin's example, I would allow the pass because of the vulnerability. If the opponents were not vulnerable, they could be preempting and everyone could have his bid (2H on x JTxxxx xx xxxx, 4H on Axxx KQxx Axxx x), but it is general bridge knowledge that they would not bid like this at unfavorable vulnerability. If redoubler held KJxx of hearts, it would likewise be impossible for the opponents to be preempting in hearts. The redoubler knows that someone has psyched, and it is not reasonable on this auction that the opponents are psyching, so it must be partner. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 16:57:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7P6srd01112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:54:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7P6skH01108 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:54:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-82.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.82]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f7P6om019425 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:50:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B874A72.FAF4C40F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:49:22 +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: [BLML] L25 again Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As if we really still needed it, another proof that L25 needs rewriting. Wednesday night, club team-of-four tournament. I am called and see the following calls on the table W N E S 1NT pass 2Di pass 2Sp pass I am called by North, who has just said something which in official bridge jargon must be translated into "oh sh*t". I take him off the table and ask him why he bid 2Sp. He tells me that he thought he had seen 2Cl opposite, and he was showing his four card suit. So I rule that this was not an inadvertent bid, L25A does not apply, L25B does, and I tell him he can change if he'll play for -3 IMPs. He does not want to do that. So I tell the table that the bidding stands and that "oh sh*t" is UI. Despite this, South bids 3Cl and passes 3NT in stead of going to 4He. But that's another story and EW did not complain. Rather, I'd like to point out that South knows, from my ruling, that 2Sp was intended as such. He does not really know why, but he does know that there is something there. That is even more UI than the "oh sh*t". Which is why I repeat that we should throw out L25A together with L25B. When the players realize that there is no way a bid can be changed once the mechanical time for correction (to be clearly stipulated) is over, maybe they will refrain from shouting "oh sh*t". -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 17:10:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7P7AAa01129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:10:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7P7A5H01125 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:10:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7P76NR04495 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006901c12d34$60b7eba0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200107252025.QAA14105@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010731094355.00b11550@127.0.0.1> <3UBzlSR+Jrh7EwLl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L25A - Not seeing a bid Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:57:03 -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 > In L82C the normal case is that a result *has* been obtained, so it is > normal to assign a score. It is *very* rare that an artificial score is > suitable after Director's error, and usually is just laziness on the > Director's part. > If this gets around to TDs, it will prevent a ploy I have been considering. Coming up against a very strong pair on the last round of an event, our side running a good score, I will open the bidding first seat with zero points. Then, before LHO acts, I will take the bid back and pass. The TD will not know about L26B, and will say I can't change my bid and the desire to pass is UI to partner. Okay, then if the psych doesn't work out, I can appeal that ruling and let the AC tell the TD about L26B. Director error! Now we get, not 40% at best, but a nice 60% or better. David, you're spoiling the fun! 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 Aug 25 17:38:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7P7cIm01146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:38:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7P7cDH01142 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:38:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:34:27 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c12d38$9bab5540$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E2A@GARFIELD> Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:35:52 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave > anna@ecats.co.uk writes > >I am here ... keeping very quiet in such august company ! > > So tell us about your cats! > e-cats? > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 19:40:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7P9bjY01228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:37:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7P9bbH01220 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:37:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-84-205.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.84.205] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15aZp8-000HfO-00; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:33:51 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c12d49$5f72b4e0$cd54063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: References: <002501c127b9$0a30fc20$f4327bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:33:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ Whence the suggestion that the second > >sentence is the 'only' circumstance in which the > >first sentence (of 11A) is to be applied? The > >second sentence requires it in a given > >circumstance; I do not see any statement that > >creates the suggested exclusivity. If that were > >the intention it could and should have been > >wrapped into a single statement. > > Maybe so. But it is still the normal > interpretation of that Law which would lead > to chaos otherwise. > +=+ In removing the sentence beginning "It is definitely forfeited if.." from 1975 to 1987 we put discretion in this back into the hands of the Director. We did not remove the power from him. I have known the power exercised where a player allows an extended auction to conclude without comment, gets a bad result, and then wants a remedy - on occasion actually saying this was what he had done. On the other hand a case was cited where an AC had overturned the decision of the Director when a non-offender had gained through offender's ignorance of the penalty and I think it was to guard against this that the second sentence was added. The prior sentence does not depend on it. Whether the interpretation you support is 'normal' or not, and I think you mean normal within your experience, it makes an assumption of meaning that the English language could more readily convey in other words if it were the intention. ~ 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 Aug 25 19:40:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7P9bi801227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:37:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7P9baH01219 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:37:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-84-205.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.84.205] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15aZp6-000HfO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:33:49 +0100 Message-ID: <002001c12d49$5e230360$cd54063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002501c127b9$0a30fc20$f4327bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:34:29 +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, August 24, 2001 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > How to be a TD is not something one > expects to be in the Laws. It is taught. > +=+ However, what is required of him by law is in the law book. My point is that failure to do does not invalidate the ruling. Nor is his decision that a player's action has forfeited his right to penalize invalidated because the second sentence of 11A does not apply, however infrequently he may find cause in such circumstances. We should be careful to distinguish between the law and practice in applying the 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 Sat Aug 25 21:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PB4b901283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:04:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from garfield.ecats.co.uk (garfield.ecats.co.uk [194.205.153.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PB4VH01279 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:04:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by GARFIELD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:58:48 +0100 Message-ID: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E3D@GARFIELD> From: anna@ecats.co.uk To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Only the brave Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:58:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Seems that cats are very "off-topic" here .. though they do operate according to their own laws! I only have three, EMale (chocolate burmese), Bear (black maine coon) & Taggie (farmyard tabby). I can do railways too - living in an old railway station (house is platform 1, office is platform 2 ... the down line). ECats really started as e-lectronic cat-alogue-s for the web but we went in a different direction eventually with ECatsBridge.com But on the subject of bridge laws, I prefer to listen and learn. anna -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:01 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave anna@ecats.co.uk writes >I am here ... keeping very quiet in such august company ! So tell us about your cats! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 21:23:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PBNMG01300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:23:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.1.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PBNHH01296 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:23:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-97.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.97]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A29541D6FD7 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:19:32 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] L25 again Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:14:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3B874A72.FAF4C40F@village.uunet.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Herman De Wael (Sat 25 Aug 2001 07:49) writes: > As if we really still needed it, another proof that L25 > needs rewriting. > > Wednesday night, club team-of-four tournament. > I am called and see the following calls on the table > > W N E S > 1NT pass 2Di > pass 2Sp pass > > I am called by North, who has just said something which in > official bridge jargon must be translated into "oh sh*t". > > I take him off the table and ask him why he bid 2Sp. > > He tells me that he thought he had seen 2Cl opposite, and he > was showing his four card suit. > > So I rule that this was not an inadvertent bid, L25A does > not apply, L25B does, and I tell him he can change if he'll > play for -3 IMPs. > He does not want to do that. A minor point - North no longer has the L25B option as his LHO has called. This doesn't affect the remainder of the argument, of course. 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 Aug 25 21:57:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PBv3I01319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:57:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PBuvH01315 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:56:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-237.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.237]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C50FE36C33; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:53:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a101c12d5c$42ec2d20$66b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] L25 again Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:20:56 +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 >Rather, I'd like to point out that South knows, from my >ruling, that 2Sp was intended as such. He does not really >know why, but he does know that there is something there. >That is even more UI than the "oh sh*t". > >Which is why I repeat that we should throw out L25A together >with L25B. When the players realize that there is no way a >bid can be changed once the mechanical time for correction >(to be clearly stipulated) is over, maybe they will refrain >from shouting "oh sh*t". > >-- >Herman DE WAEL Goodness, let us forbid them to play bridge, that really prevents them from saying 'oh shit' when playing bridge. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Aug 25 23:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PDTos07805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:29:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com (juicer34.bigpond.com [139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PDTjH07801 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:29:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GIMLLH00.DVH for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:32:05 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-143.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.143]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 8329/14274018); 25 Aug 2001 23:32:05 Message-ID: <010101c12d68$ab629d60$8fdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:20:10 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >Someone wrote: >>For his ruling to be complete, surely the Director >>should have explained how this requirement was >>met, before making the ruling. > And where is it said that the Director is >required to explain the reasons for a ruling? There is a vast difference between Someone's "should have explained" and your *is required to explain*. For your "where is it said" to be relevant to the discussion, Someone's comment would have had to say "must explain". Please read the Preface to the Laws of Bridge if you do not understand the difference between these verbs. Do you really think that TDs should keep the reasons for a ruling secret? How then are the players to decide whether to appeal or not? Let me give a real-life example from a National Championship... South makes eight tricks in 4H (-200) after giving uncorrected MI. At the end of the hand, East questions N/S and discovers that South gave East MI, without which the contract would have been doubled. East calls the TD who agrees, goes away, comes back and adjusts the score to 4HX down one (-200). After the session, East asks the TD to tell him any line of play on which declarer can make more than eight tricks. The TD refuses to divulge any such information. Thus East decides not to appeal, as he expects to be fined for a frivolous appeal because he has probably missed something which the TD(s) have noticed. When East showed me the hand a few days later, I analysed the hand fully, and could not find a line of play to make more than eight tricks, as long as E/W did not throw away any of their aces. Grattan seems to want to encourage this scenario of omnipotent TDs and plebeian players, whereas DWS seems to want to encourage a bridge world in which TDs courteously inform the players of the relevant reasons behind a ruling where appropriate. Put me in the DWS camp. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 02:16:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFCe12240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PGEnH12209 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ag1W-000LCY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:09:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC References: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> <001701c1228b$3cfb8680$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@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 >However, I feel compelled as an ACBL TD to recall the notorious "Oh >s--t" case of a year or two ago, noting that it was reported in the >ACBL bulletin as a decision which the reportage did not criticize or >suggest to be in error, and which has thus become established case >law. It is not case law. It was roundly criticised by various publications and is accepted as being a ruling in error. The case-book says it was wrong [broadly - the case-book never has 100% opinions]. The ACBL LC have since pronounced and they do not support the O sh*t ruling. Later cases from the NABCs make it clear that the O sh*t case is not accepted as case law. > My own feelings on the case, which are the same as Hirsch's, >notwithstanding, I submit that the ruling given by the AC in .in-land >(India? Indonesia?) would properly have gone the other way in North >America. If anything, North's intent here was far more apparent than >declarer's in the "Oh s--t" case, and allowing him to "correct" his >"inadvertant play" would clearly produce the "normal" ("equitable") >result, so the precedent would clearly apply. This is a different situation entirely. You are allowed to correct an inadvertent *designation* under certain situations. You are not allowed to correct a played card otherwise just because it was inadvertent. >My answer to Mr. Abhyankar, then, is that this is not an area of >settled law, but depends on local practice and the policies of his NCBO. In my view the ruling would have been the same in North America. Unfortunately, I remember a Bridge World article from some years ago which does not support this contention where it supported a clearly incorrect ruling in a not totally different situation. Damn! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 02:16:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFJH12244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:19 +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-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 f7PGEvH12226 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:58 +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 15ag1d-000GPK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:00:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? References: <3B7B2887.C86D5349@ptialaska.net> <00a901c1263e$f7fa7a20$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <00a901c1263e$f7fa7a20$04220fa4@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 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Michael Schmahl > >> So, my simple question is, when is a penalty card not a penalty card? > >AG : when is a horse a dog ? Never. That is not quite relevant. The TD has a right to say it is not a penalty card. >The card remained a penalty card. >If the card had to be played (as an attack or following suit or as a >discard) on a former trick, then the offender went again L52A. >But the declarer is deemd to have accepted the illegal lead (L52B1b) and the >card remained a penalty card (L52B1c), so it had to ba played at the moment >they called you. >It is possible that the declarer had the posssibility to use L50D2, but his >non-demand meant that the card remained a penalty card (50D2b). > >So, all's well that ends well. If you had been called before, the same >sequiece of events could have happened, with the same result. That is the basic problem with this ruling: what Alain says *may* be wrong. If you are called to the table, and your ruling includes an MPC, then you warn the players the effects of an MPC. Now the defenders may perfectly legitimately take steps to minimise the effects of that MPC. If they act as though it is an MPC without calling you they do not get the warning, and then they may not minimise it in the way they can. So, Alain, we do not know whether the sequence of events is the same. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 02:16:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFBE12239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PGEnH12208 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:50 +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 15ag1W-000GPK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:04 +0000 Message-ID: <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:12:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@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 disagree about what Law 45B says. To quote Law 45B: > >"Play of Card from Dummy >Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after >which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table..." > >i.e. "dummy picks up the card" AFTER "declarer plays >a card". An action which comes AFTER another action is >not part of the latter. This makes the ruling much less clear >than Hirsch indicates - I have a lot of sympathy for NS, >and I think the Laws may well be on NS's side, especially >Law 46A which Hirsch mentions in another section of his >post (which I have snipped). I am not sure about this interpretation. To change gear on a car, you Depress the clutch AFTER depressing the clutch you move the gear lever. I do not believe that you have changed gear once you have depressed the clutch. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 02:16:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFKd12243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PGEvH12228 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:58 +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 15ag1d-000LCY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: <1GnTBPHms8h7EwbS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:58:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B90E@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B90E@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >this is a New Zealand movement, one board per pair. ???????????? Go on, Ton, tell me what the other pair do! I am reminded of the infamous Whitley Bay movement, one board per table and per round, stationary boards, all pairs move. Todd Zimnoch writes > Ah, we get too much English on this list anyways. English? No-one writes real English here except Burn, Marv and the Danes. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 02:16:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFE012242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PGEoH12211 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:50 +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 15ag1W-000GPM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:43:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> In-Reply-To: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@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 >+=+ A view that I press impatiently, even >beyond the point of irritating those who >must wait for the decennary for every >change.+=+ Decennary? Surely not? Burn! Marv! What is a decennary? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 02:16:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFEh12241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PGEnH12210 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:50 +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 15ag1W-000GPL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:39:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... References: <200108032147.f73LlUe16044@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010806075612.00abaac0@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 05:47 PM 8/3/01, Ted wrote: >> Do you think it was wrong of the Flight A >>player to try this "coup" of his? > >It was worse than wrong; it was disgusting and despicable. I can't >find a specific law addressing it ("The laws are primarily designed not >as punishment..."), but if this occurred in a club I was running, I >would sit this player down and tell him in no uncertain terms that that >is not how we play the game around here, and unless he changes his >attitude towards the game right now and convincingly he is no longer >welcome at my club. (In the more formal context of the WBL Unit Game, >I would refer the matter to my C&E committee, and expect them to do >much the same.) Why is it wrong? You need to sneak a trick, you sneak a trick. Tell me why this is wrong, please? Eric Landau writes >If one genuinely believes that the deliberate ploy which was the >original subject of the thread is perfectly proper, legal and ethical, >one would not only add it to one's arsenal of declarer techniques, but >would make a particular point of trotting it out against opponents who >are known to have difficulty hearing. Yet I very much doubt that any >of those who have made this argument in the theoretical context of this >forum actually intend to adopt this strategy. They should ask >themselves why not. I would not because it is anathema to gain because of a person's physical disabilities. But that does not mean it is wrong to do so when an opponents is not known to be hard of hearing and am surprised you consider the cases comparable. A player makes a legal play, not mentioned as being unethical in any way, that will only work if the opponents are not concentrating. Every good player does this every day - why not? A player does a play that is legal and ethical but he does it against a player who is more likely to go wrong because of a physical disability - why not? You think these are the same? Ted Ying writes >TY: An additional point that I mentioned in the original. The >declarer was one of the better flight A players in the room. The >defenders were Flight C players who were relatively new to the >game. One point I was trying to make (obviously not well) was, >is this appropriate behaviour for a Flight A player to try and >take advantage of new players to the game? This is the type of >behaviour that discourages many of them from coming back to the >game because duplicate players are rude, obnoxious, and they are >rules lawyers who know the rules for duplicate play and take every >advantage of them to abuse casual or less experienced players who >don't know all the laws and subsections, etc. First of all, rude and obnoxious are against the Laws of the game, and people who try to take advantage of newcomers by breaking the laws should be dealt with, and severely. It is less obvious that players who do not break the Laws need to be dealt with! Second, rules lawyers is a term generally employed for people who are trying to take advantage in a way generally perceived of as unfair. Generally, a defender not attending and declarer taking advantage is not the sort of thing considered as rules lawyering. David Burn writes >Grattan Endicott has said: "It is never unethical to wish to play a game >according to its Laws". Eric Landau has said: "It was worse than wrong; >it was disgusting and despicable." They are both right. Arguments to the >effect that one or other of them is wrong are pointless. I do not see why. People read this list, and surely change their minds because of what they read sometimes? Even if neither Grattan nor Eric change their views here there are c250 other people whose views might change because of such arguments. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 02:16:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGFL912245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:15:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PGEwH12229 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:14:59 +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 15ag1e-000GPL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:11:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:00:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty card in absence of director? References: <200108161817.UAA02810@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> In-Reply-To: <200108161817.UAA02810@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Petrus Schuster OSB writes >We had a similar incident last week, in Austria's largest >tournament: >The TD was called by declarer in the following situation: >A defender had revoked with S5, corrected it immediately and >was told by declarer that S5 would be a penalty card. When >spades were played several tricks later, this defender >followed with S8, and his partner won the trick. Declarer >now wanted to know whether he could demand a spade lead, as >S5 was still exposed. >We decided that this defender had been damaged by declarer >taking the Law in his own hands. As he did not have a chance >to have his obligations explained to him by the TD in time. >As he should have played S5 to the preceding trick, he >should no longer have a penalty card. Therefore we >"designated otherwise" as per L50 and told him to pick up >S5, no lead restriction. Good. This is the situation that worries me. In effect it is the L11A situation where we would not mind people playing on except when the NOs are trying to take advantage. I am sure it is correct to designate the card as not a penalty card in this situation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 02:54:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGscf16328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PGsVH16314 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.24.147] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15agdy-0006UG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:50:46 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c12d86$0ecf0380$93187ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:50:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Decennary? Surely not? Burn! Marv! What is a decennary? What it sounds like - a period of ten years. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 02:56:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PGumW16796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:56:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PGugH16783 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:56:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.24.147] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15agg7-0006cy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:52:59 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c12d86$5e19c7e0$93187ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B90E@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <1GnTBPHms8h7EwbS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:52:44 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > I am reminded of the infamous Whitley Bay movement, one board per > table and per round, stationary boards, all pairs move. There is also, of course, the Barnfield movement for the women's pairs. In this, the East-West pairs move up one table after fifteen minutes. The boards do not move at all, nor are they used. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 03:01:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PH1Co17728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dc-mx05.cluster1.charter.net (dc-mx05.cluster0.hsacorp.net [209.225.8.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PH14H17711 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:01:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [24.196.233.227] (HELO Bill) by dc-mx05.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.6) with SMTP id 24995990 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:02:56 -0400 Message-ID: <008c01c12d87$75e71d40$e3e9c418@Charter.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:00:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ A view that I press impatiently, even > >beyond the point of irritating those who > >must wait for the decennary for every > >change.+=+ > > Decennary? Surely not? Burn! Marv! What is a decennary? Per my American Heritage Dictionary on my PC, de·cen·na·ry (d¹-sµn“…-r¶) adj. 1. Of or relating to a ten-year period. --de·cen·na·ry n., pl. de·cen·na·ries. A period of ten years; a decade. [From Latin decennis, lasting for ten years. See DECENNIUM.] Cheers..................../Bill Bickford > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 03:30:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PHULG21455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:30:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PHUFH21451 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:30:16 +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 f7PHQUH29097 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:26:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010825131728.00ab7d10@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:29:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: <000901c12c9f$099b9d20$36897ad5@pbncomputer> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010824081611.00aef9d0@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 09:16 AM 8/24/01, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > Whatever the rationale for various NCBOs' dropping or retaining the > > boxes on the CC was, I cannot accept that it was based on the > > ridiculous premise that information which you yourself have written on > > your own CC might be unauthorized for you. > >On the contrary. The official position appears to me to be that although >the opponents are allowed to know the extent to which your partnership >makes psychic bids, your partnership itself is not. For if it did, then >the bids themselves would not be psyches but part of your "system" - >and, of course, subject to whatever constraints on system are permitted. >It is a curious kind of doublethink, but it is more or less forced by >Law and regulation. I don't follow the argument here. "System" is about the agreed meaning (or possible meaning) of particular calls. So if you have an understanding about situations in which you are more or less likely to psych, or about the type of hand you might hold when you do, that's "system". But I don't see how whether you will or you won't, or how frequently you might, independent of situation or hand type, can be considered "system". Sort of like calling the "agreement" that you will call only after RHO and before LHO part of your "system". It would seem that the "official position" is a case of your not being allowed to possess information that you are nevertheless required to supply. So if an opponent asks you about partner's psyching tendencies, you can either refuse to answer, which is illegal, or answer, only to stand accused of knowing the answer, which is also illegal. IMHO that requires a stronger word than "doublethink". 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 Sun Aug 26 04:22:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PIM0Z22123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:22:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PILsH22107 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:21:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010825181806.HMPZ11231.femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:18:06 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:17:25 -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: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >This is another example of people just drawing their own line and not >reading or absorbing anything they can't use. >Why don't you believe Linda Trent, who is able to give an official ACBL >answer on such a matter, Of course, the usual disclaimer - all my opinions are just that relying on my own memory from attending gobs of meetings over the years.... If only I *could* give official ACBL answers :-) :-) Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 04:22:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PIMTZ22188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:22:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail12.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail12.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PIMNH22176 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:22:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail12.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010825181834.HZFJ1414.femail12.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:18:34 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Bali Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:17:54 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Just like the other thread - Who all will be in Bali? Count me in... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 04:26:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PIPr822682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:25:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PIPgH22651 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-69-184.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.69.184] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15ai4A-000C0X-00; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:21:55 +0100 Message-ID: <006d01c12d93$24d70bc0$b845063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:18:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > > Decennary? Surely not? Burn! Marv! > What is a decennary? > +=+ And I bet you think a millenary is a place where they make hats? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 04:26:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PIPu322686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:25:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PIPhH22653 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:25:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-69-184.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.69.184] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15ai4C-000C0X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:21:56 +0100 Message-ID: <006e01c12d93$25c08160$b845063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <010101c12d68$ab629d60$8fdd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:14:18 +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: BLML Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A non-mechanical error from the Brighton Swiss Pairs > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Someone wrote: > >>For his ruling to be complete, surely the Director > >>should have explained how this requirement was > >>met, before making the ruling. > > And where is it said that the Director is > >required to explain the reasons for a ruling? > > > There is a vast difference between Someone's > "should have explained" and your *is required > to explain*. For your "where is it said" to be > relevant to the discussion, Someone's comment > would have had to say "must explain". Please > read the Preface to the Laws of Bridge if you >do not understand the difference between these > verbs. > > Do you really think that TDs should keep the > reasons for a ruling secret? How then are the > players to decide whether to appeal or not? > Let me give a real-life example from a > National Championship... > +=+ No, I do not think reasons should normally be kept secret. I am a 'freedom of information' believer. However, the ruling is 'complete' (sic) without the explanation. The 'reason' for any ruling is the Director's judgement, on the evidence he has obtained, that there has not been, or that there has been, a violation of law/regulation. If the latter he should specify which Law. He may add some further explanation of what caused him to reach his conclusion, but he may withhold that further explanation if he thinks fit - to avoid inflaming a situation, for example, or even to avoid an allegation of defamation. ~ 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 Aug 26 04:26:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PIPvC22687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:25:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PIPiH22664 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:25:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-69-184.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.69.184] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15ai4D-000C0X-00; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:20:12 +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: Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > > I do not believe that you have changed > gear once you have depressed the clutch. > +=+ But in that case you do not have a law that says you have. Law 45B tells us that declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it, and after he has played the card dummy picks it up etc. Be conscious of the comma in that sentence. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 06:52:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PKpdL10613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 06:51:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PKpXH10609 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 06:51:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauhkp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.153]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05163 for ; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002601c12da7$322bbc80$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 16:47:45 -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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > > Grattan Endicott "I have great belief in the fact that > whenever there is chaos, it creates > wonderful thinking. I consider chaos > a gift. ~ Septima P. Clark > + + + + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:12 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > > > > > > I do not believe that you have changed > > gear once you have depressed the clutch. > > > +=+ But in that case you do not have a > law that says you have. > Law 45B tells us that declarer plays > a card from dummy by naming it, and after > he has played the card dummy picks it up > etc. Be conscious of the comma in that > sentence. ~ G ~ +=+ > I'm going to repeat a question I asked earlier in this thread, as I do not believe it was answered: Does this interpretation mean that Dummy is facing the card during RHO's turn to play? 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 Sun Aug 26 06:55:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PKthD10626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 06:55:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7PKtcH10622 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 06:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-45-195.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.45.195] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15akPB-000AJX-00; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:51:46 +0100 Message-ID: <002501c12da8$143bbee0$c32d7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Eric Landau" Cc: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl><002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><4.3.2.7.1.20010824081611.00aef9d0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010825131728.00ab7d10@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:51:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > >Eric wrote: > > > > It would seem that the "official position" > is a case of your not being allowed to > possess information that you are > nevertheless required to supply. So if > an opponent asks you about partner's > psyching tendencies, you can either > refuse to answer, which is illegal, or > answer, only to stand accused of > knowing the answer, which is also > illegal. IMHO that requires a > stronger word than "doublethink". > +=+ Eric, The point about UI is that you may possess it, indeed you do possess it, but you are not permitted to use 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 Sun Aug 26 08:38:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7PMc5r18258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 08:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7PMbxH18254 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 08:38:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.46.45] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15am0L-0005gf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:34:14 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c12db6$09468980$2d2e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> <002601c12da7$322bbc80$0a01a8c0@davishi> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 23:33:57 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hisrch wrote: > Does this interpretation mean that Dummy is facing the card during RHO's > turn to play? Well, it happens quite often in practice that I will call for a card from dummy but Callaghan, who is asleep, doesn't pick it up. If my RHO plays his card before Brian wakes up and moves the card I have requested into the played position, I don't think that I or anyone else would consider that he had played out of turn. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 11:52:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q1pVm21055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7Q1p9H21030 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:09 +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 15ap1E-0002F8-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:43:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes References: <3B699F91.17084.1F46C41@localhost> <00ab01c11c01$ba465100$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <00ab01c11c01$ba465100$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> 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 f7Q1pCH21036 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : oopsz ... what's that bug ? In my book there is indeed a L43B2C. Nope, no L43B2C in the 1997 Laws. >Traduttore ... >But you're right, 43B2C is concerned with something slightly different. I >simply stated that, since something is said about the fact that dummy may >not enquire after he has been deprived of his rights, in the general case he >may. The fact that he has additional restrictions after losing his rights does not mean there are no restrictions if he does not. In other words, the additional restrictions do not answer the question at all: they do not say whether it is legal to warn dummy his played card would be a revoke. Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : I swear that in my book, the footnote to L62 mentions 43B2c, and that >43B2c does exists. It reads (translated from French) : > >... is the first to draw attention to an irregularity by a defender, no >penalty will be applied. If the defense gets direct advantage from its >irregularity, the director will give both sides an adjusted score to go back >to equity. > >My version is the official French version of 1997. Scan sent on request. That is L43B3. Interesting. Alain Gottcheiner writes >AG : assuming they've heard about it ... however, there could be a slightly >more reputable explanation : for some stylistic reason, to translate L432b >from English as it was was pretty difficult, and the French solved the >problem by splitting the alinea in two, thus prompting a change in the >footnote to L62 (good editor's work). I am afraid the difficult reason will not hold water. I have checked, and L43B2C [French] uses the same words ["Si le mort, ... précédentat"] as at the start of L43B2A and L43B2B. In the English version, the words ["If dummy, ... preceding"] are repeated at the start of L43B3 instead. There is no substantive difference, just an editing one. I note that L43B3 is one of the very few sections with no title: the French edition has no title for any of the three sections. L43 B 2 Pénalités spécifiques Si le mort, après violation des limitations énumérées en A 2 précédent : (c) est le premier à attirer l'attention sur une irrégularité d'un des joueurs de la défense, aucune pénalité n'est appliquée. Si le camp de la défense tire directement avantage de son irrégularité, l'arbitre attribue une marque ajustée aux deux camps pour rétablir l'équité. L43 B 3 If dummy, after violation of the limitations listed in A2 preceding is the first to draw attention to a defender's irregularity, no penalty shall be imposed. If the defenders benefit directly through their irregularity, the Director shall award an adjusted score to both sides to restore equity. Note that there are links to a variety of law books including the French at http://blakjak.com/lws_lnks.htm and I would like to hear of more. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 11:52:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q1pPP21052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f7Q1pBH21035 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:12 +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 15ap1F-0002F9-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:09:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] etablish a revoke = infraction? References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <3B6AF225.13674.1BEC84E@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3B6AF225.13674.1BEC84E@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk stefan filonardi writes >need an help because I am not longer sure about after so eminent >TD express the same opinion. > >Kooijman: >> that he is still trying to prevent an irregularity: the revoke >> becoming established > >Probst: >> Establishing the revoke will be an infraction > >Till now I believed that a revoke is an infraction, that can be >established. That to establish a revoke is *itself* an >infraction is a new concept to me, where do I find it in the >laws? I do not believe establishing is an infraction. At least, I have read nothing anywhere that suggests it is. Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <001701c11cd7$0eaf4b40$f61b7ad5@pbncomputer> >This is not particularly addressed to David's points, just a general >expression of amazement. > >Come on guys. Surely we can say "It's OK for dummy to just play the card >as he is told, it is equally OK for him to draw attention to the revoke >whether he has lost his rights or not." Either way the table can no >doubt have a little laugh at declarer's expense and get on with the hand. It is quite helpful to a number of people to actually find out for certain what the legal position is. The fact that you or I might, when playing, allow a dummy to do something reasonable even if it is illegal is interesting but does not really mean we do not need to know the Law. I have still not read anything that suggest to me that it is ok for him to draw attention to the revoke. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 11:52:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q1pRq21054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7Q1pFH21046 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:16 +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 15ap1F-0002FE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 19:01:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge * EMale, Bear, Taggie Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo EL, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac, Flash David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 11:52:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q1pXg21056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7Q1p9H21031 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:09 +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 15ap1F-0002FB-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:09:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) References: <3B6AB60D.11932.D4023C@localhost> <008801c11c94$80e4cb60$2017a241@mom> In-Reply-To: <008801c11c94$80e4cb60$2017a241@mom> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy writes >Where are the other two clods at this table that are equally responsible for >the dummy and required to point out an irregularity at the table when it >occurs? The whole table is responsible for the dummy revoke and prevention >thereof. No, I do not think so. This idea has grown up over the years "Everyone is responsible for dummy" but has no legal force. We have decided in an earlier thread that where dummy puts his cards down so that one is hidden [which is an infraction] that the defenders have a right to redress, ie they are not responsible for dummmy. From: "stefan filonardi" >> Where the big crash happens, is when after having seen that >> dummy is not allowed to call attention to the irregularity we >> read: >> >> ---- >> LAW62 >> A. A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the >> irregulatiry before it becomes etablished. >> ---- Very clever. But dummy may not participate in the play, and I think this is participating in the play. Declarer is responsible for playing dummy's cards, and I believe the responsibility in L62A is for declarer to correct dummy's revoke if he becomes aware of it before it becomes established. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 11:52:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q1pQK21053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f7Q1pAH21033 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:51:11 +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 15ap1F-0002FA-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 02:47:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:09:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Quite so. But 42B2 specifically allows dummy to prevent *any* >irregularity by declarer, and - as Ed rightly says - it is silly to rule >under Law 43 that he can't. Now, for declarer to revoke in playing a >card from dummy would be an irregularity, and dummy may try to prevent >it by pointing out that there are some cards of the suit led in dummy. But once a card is played the infraction has occurred and he can no longer prevent it. Suppose declarer is in hand, and declarer calls for a card from dummy. He has led out of turn, and dummy can do nothing to prevent it. >Frankly, the depths to which this discussion has gone are a complete and >utter mystery to me. Does anyone seriously believe that if the following >situation were to occur: > >Declarer: "Small heart, please" >Dummy: "No, you have to play a diamond!" > >there would be a call for the Director in an attempt to establish a >revoke from dummy that could not be penalised in any case? No, there would be a call for the Director from perfectly ethical and reasonable players who know an irregularity has occurred and expect the TD to clear it up. They do not know the Law. > Not that the >situation can occur, of course, for as even its instigator acknowledges, >Law 42 supersedes Law 43, and not the other way around, so that the >position is fully and sensibly covered by the Laws (without recourse to >L64 or any other "ultimate argument"). So you say. But I think you need to be a little more convincing. After all, the Law does not give you the right to do more than [a] prevent an irregularity, such as a revoke, and [b] ask declarer whether he has a card of the suit led. You are too late for [a] [the infraction has occurred] and [b] does not apply [of course he has a card of the suit led - he led it]. So how do you justify dummy's actions? >I think, to be honest, that if Ed had read L42B2 before firing off his >original missive, much bandwidth might have been saved. Not that it >hasn't been entertaining. I think it would be a good idea if you read L42B2 and L45B yourself. Anton Witzen writes >At 08:13 PM 02-08-01 +0200, you wrote: >>we have a law about what dummy is allowed to do PRE EVENT, we >>have a law about what he is allowed to do after event. >> >>I don't see where there is need for further clarification, maybe >>I am to simple minded :-)) still I wonder that in north america >>you can prevent something that happend ;-) >the establishment of the revoke isnt happened and btw the establishment >isnt punished. so whats the problem allowing dummy to warn declarer???? >i think this is sort of a non problem :) But is dummy allowed to prevent the establishment, ie warn about the revoke? It really is not entirely clear from anything I have read that he is. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 14:44:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q4hmD27250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:43:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from deakin.edu.au (root@hestia.its.deakin.edu.au [128.184.136.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7Q4hhH27246 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:43:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from saruman.deakin.edu.au (saruman.cm.deakin.edu.au [128.184.80.138]) by deakin.edu.au (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7Q4dxp17226 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:39:59 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010826143938.00b1d370@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> X-Sender: doug@mail-g.deakin.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:40:51 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Douglas Newlands Subject: RE: [BLML] Only the brave In-Reply-To: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E2A@GARFIELD> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:08 24/08/2001 +0100, anna@ecats.co.uk wrote: >I am here ... keeping very quiet in such august company ! fear not, soon it will merely be september company! Douglas >-----Original Message----- >From: David Stevenson [mailto:bridge@blakjak.com] > >Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ There is a possibility that we can welcome > >Anna Gudge to this list. She has enquired and > >I have warned her what she would be getting > >into. > > Hehe - she'll regret 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 Sun Aug 26 14:54:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q4sCk27263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:54:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7Q4s6H27259 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 14:54:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauhkp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.153]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA01543 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c12dea$99019720$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> <002601c12da7$322bbc80$0a01a8c0@davishi> <000a01c12db6$09468980$2d2e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 00:50:14 -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: "David Burn" To: Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > Hisrch wrote: > > > Does this interpretation mean that Dummy is facing the card during > RHO's > > turn to play? > > Well, it happens quite often in practice that I will call for a card > from dummy but Callaghan, who is asleep, doesn't pick it up. If my RHO > plays his card before Brian wakes up and moves the card I have requested > into the played position, I don't think that I or anyone else would > consider that he had played out of turn. > > David Burn > London, England > > And 99% of the time it wouldn't matter. Then there's that other small fraction... IMO, there's still something to be said for an orderly progression of the game. To borrow from another thread, you call for the eight, Brian snores, and RHO plays low (having heard Ace). The TD will come and sort it out, but the ruling is easy if Brian had actually played. With Dummy's card on the table in front of him, RHO has no argument that he was basing his play on an unclear designation by you. If RHO contended you had called a different card, the actual card played would be determined by the TD before RHO put a card on the table, minimizing UI. Or, you call the Ace, and RHO plays the queen. Brian finally wakes up and plays the Ace, at which time RHO summons the TD, claiming you played the eight. LHO backs up his partner, Dummy backs up you, and the TD (head hurting) rules that the queen goes back and RHO can change his play. If the TD ruled that your designation of the ace was unclear, the presence of the queen in RHO's hand would then become UI to you, but AI to his partner. Might be important later. Did RHO really not hear you, or is he a "sharp" player...? Why worry about it? If we can rule that RHO played prematurely by playing before Dummy faced his card, we simply point out that he should have waited for his turn, and let him live with the result of his actual play. RHO can never argue that he based his play on an unclear designation from Declarer, since any unclear designation gets sorted out when Dummy faces his card, before RHO plays. Simple and straightforward. And if Brian really needs the nap, 45B does allow you to face the card for him. 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 Sun Aug 26 18:29:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7Q8SVx02864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:28:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7Q8SOH02860 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:28:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-69-69.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.69.69] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15avDf-000Efu-00; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:24:35 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c12e08$ddd7ad80$4545063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij><003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 08:33:53 +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 > ? Was it Anton who wrote: > >>we have a law about what dummy is > >>allowed to do PRE EVENT, we have a law > >>about what he is allowed to do after event. > >> > >>I don't see where there is need for further > >>clarification, maybe I am to simple minded :-)) > >>still I wonder that in north america you can > >>prevent something that happend ;-) > > >the establishment of the revoke hasnt happened > >and btw the establishment isnt punished. so > >whats the problem allowing dummy to warn > >declarer???? > >i think this is sort of a non problem :) > +=+ There has to be a lot of sympathy for the argument that after a revoke card has been called from dummy but the revoke has not yet become established, it is sensible to allow dummy to call attention to what may follow. However, as has been rightly said the irregularity has already happened; so the position is that if dummy points out what is about to happen next it is a communication of something about the play. [Law 43A1(c)] Early in the thread DB suggested it could be looked at in Bali. I have noted this. It probably needs a change of law if the position is not judged to be satisfactory as it is, so it is likely to become a referral from there to the drafting sub-committee due to meet in Montreal. (There is a suggestion that we might spend four or five days privately at work in the sub-committee, either before or after the Tournament in Montreal. I am exploring the feasibility of this.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 20:02:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QA0FR02914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:00:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QA0AH02910 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:00:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010826095622.CZYJ703.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:56:22 +1200 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: Subject: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 9:56:22 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010826095622.CZYJ703.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD PENALTIES When an offending player’s call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: A. Call Related to Specific Suit if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and..." 1. My question is does a penalty double relate to the specified suit (the suit that has been doubled)? 2. While I am here, what about a takeout double? Any opinions? 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 Aug 26 20:47:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QAkar02990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:46:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QAkPH02977 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:46:25 +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 15axNE-000EPr-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:42:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:16:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> <001101c12d86$0ecf0380$93187ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001101c12d86$0ecf0380$93187ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Decennary? Surely not? Burn! Marv! What is a decennary? > >What it sounds like - a period of ten years. Why not a decennium? Alternatively, why have we not been arguing about the millenary? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Aug 26 20:47:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QAkaR02989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:46:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QAkPH02979 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:46:25 +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 15axNE-000EPs-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:42:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:19:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Justice vs Equity References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B90E@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <1GnTBPHms8h7EwbS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001b01c12d86$5e19c7e0$93187ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001b01c12d86$5e19c7e0$93187ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> I am reminded of the infamous Whitley Bay movement, one board per >> table and per round, stationary boards, all pairs move. > >There is also, of course, the Barnfield movement for the women's pairs. >In this, the East-West pairs move up one table after fifteen minutes. >The boards do not move at all, nor are they used. I did not know the name, but Mike Swanson and I used it at a Ladies' Pairs Qualifying [they have women's pairs in the *South* of England] at Liverpool Bridge Club about thirty years ago. Seemed to work. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 20:47:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QAkhJ02991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:46:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QAkPH02978 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:46:25 +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 15axNE-000EPq-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:42:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 04:15:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@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: David Stevenson >> I do not believe that you have changed >> gear once you have depressed the clutch. >+=+ But in that case you do not have a >law that says you have. > Law 45B tells us that declarer plays >a card from dummy by naming it, and after >he has played the card dummy picks it up >etc. Be conscious of the comma in that >sentence. I am very conscious of it, but that does not mean that I read it the same way as you. Of course, what you have written above would make the placing of the card after playing it, but then you have not quoted the Law. You have added in "after he has played the card" but the Law is different. I still think that if there were a "Law" on how to change gear it is not impossible that someone would write it 'A driver changes gear by depressing the clutch, after which he moves the gear lever accordingly.' This includes your comma, and does not seem wrong to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 22:25:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QCOjY03048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:24:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QCOaH03044 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:24:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.51.65] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15ayuH-0001Hf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:20:50 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c12e29$81b2cc80$41337ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> <001101c12d86$0ecf0380$93187ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:20:30 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Why not a decennium? Alternatively, why have we not been arguing > about the millenary? We could have done. The words "decennary" and "decennium" are synonymous - as, to save further correspondence on this less than riveting topic, are the words "centenary" and "century", also "millenary" and "millennium". In common usage, one employs words such as "centenary" for a hundredth anniversary, and "century" for a period of a hundred years, but it is not wrong to say that we are now in the 21st centenary (please, no more about which year of the 21st centenary). I do not know why "centenary" is not spelt "centennary", nor why "centen(n)ium" is not given in Chambers. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 23:10:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QDAXp03086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:10:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QDASH03082 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:10:29 +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 15azcb-000OGv-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:06:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:43:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? References: <20010826095622.CZYJ703.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> In-Reply-To: <20010826095622.CZYJ703.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne writes >"LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD PENALTIES >When an offending player’s call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different >final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: >A. Call Related to Specific Suit >if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or suits and..." > >1. My question is does a penalty double relate to the specified suit (the suit >that has been doubled)? Pass. >2. While I am here, what about a takeout double? That is easy, no it does not. Mind you, it is easy to say it, easy to believe it, but difficult to really say why. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Aug 26 23:13:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QDDXe03103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:13:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com (juicer35.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QDDTH03099 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:13:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.81]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GIOFHH00.9NF for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:15:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-68.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.68]) by bwmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9g 8335/11416859); 26 Aug 2001 23:15:17 Message-ID: <004401c12e2f$7b48e540$44df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:03:19 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: Peter Gill wrote: >>I disagree about what Law 45B says. To quote Law 45B: >> >>"Play of Card from Dummy >>Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after >>which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table..." >> >>i.e. "dummy picks up the card" AFTER "declarer plays >>a card". > I am not sure about this interpretation. To change gear >on a car, you > >Depress the clutch >AFTER depressing the clutch you move the gear lever. > > I do not believe that you have changed gear once >you have depressed the clutch. I see your point. Yes, the definition in this Law does seem to be ambiguous. I hadn't realised at first, because there is a natural tendency to take one's own reading as the only reading. With the WBF apparently due to receive 50c from each player in each NCBO in the world from 1/1/2002 onwards, perhaps some of the money could be spent on a wordsmith going through the Laws to rectify such wording slips amongst other things. Esteemed WBF (and ex-ABF) TD Richard Grenside wrote a treatise "Bridge Laws Explained In Easy To Read Format" published earlier this year. **. It provides the reader with the benefit of Richard's 30 years of experience. Quoting from it: "The hardest part of directing is to know where to find the law you are looking for. I once set a straightforward directors' exam with every answer requiring both the law number and paragraph with ancillary laws. Where appropriate, the use of Rule Books was permitted. 10 questions, 3 hours later, most of the applicants were still scouring the rule book with many complaining that although they knew the ruling, they couldn't find it." Seems to me that I'm not the only one who think an entire rewrite of the Laws is worth doing. I would propose that the soon-to-be wealthy WBF should ask David Burn and/or David Stevenson to do the job. Peter Gill Australia ** available from the author, or via me if necessary. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 00:37:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QEbMQ03173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:37:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QEbHH03169 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:37:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.57.96] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15b0yg-0003M2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:33:31 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c12e3c$0ab2f3e0$41337ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:32:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > But once a card is played the infraction has occurred and he can no > longer prevent it. I am confused. You seem to me to be arguing in some other thread that the card is not played until dummy has picked it up and played it, just as you have not changed gear once you have depressed the clutch. I don't actually agree with that - I think the card is played as soon as declarer has named or otherwise designated it. But the actual play of the card is not the "irregularity" that dummy is trying to prevent. Of course you cannot prevent something once it has occurred. What dummy is trying to do is to prevent declarer from breaking Law 62A - that is, from proceeding with the play of the hand having become aware of, but failed to correct, a revoke. It my be argued - indeed, if I understand you correctly, you do argue - that dummy is acting ultra vires in drawing declarer's attention to the revoke. But his doing so is, in my view, a legitimate attempt to prevent an irregular play by declarer - not the revoke itself, but leaving it uncorrected. In this context, the question of whether L42 supersedes L43 or vice versa is important. > No, there would be a call for the Director from perfectly ethical and > reasonable players who know an irregularity has occurred and expect the > TD to clear it up. They do not know the Law. Perhaps. But I do not think that any bridge player would know, or believe, that an irregularity had occurred when dummy attempted to correct delcarer's revoke from dummy. If the TD were called in such a case, there would be universal amazement. > So you say. But I think you need to be a little more convincing. > After all, the Law does not give you the right to do more than > > [a] prevent an irregularity, such as a revoke, and > [b] ask declarer whether he has a card of the suit led. > > You are too late for [a] [the infraction has occurred] and [b] does > not apply [of course he has a card of the suit led - he led it]. So how > do you justify dummy's actions? As above - he is trying to prevent declarer from breaking L62A. > I think it would be a good idea if you read L42B2 and L45B yourself. It's all right. I already know what they say. > But is dummy allowed to prevent the establishment, ie warn about the > revoke? It really is not entirely clear from anything I have read that > he is. To establish a revoke is not in itself an irregularity, of course. But to continue with play having become aware of a revoke, but having failed to correct it, is irregular. It may be argued that, just as under L63B a revoke becomes established when attention is illegally drawn to it by a defender's question to partner, so a revoke from dummy "ought to be" established if attention is illegally drawn to it by a question from dummy to declarer. But, since in the latter case there is no penalty for the revoke anyway, one wonders what would be the point. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 00:52:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QEq5m03190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:52:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QEq0H03186 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:52:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.57.96] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15b1Cv-0007EN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:48:14 +0100 Message-ID: <004401c12e3e$18d448a0$41337ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <20010826095622.CZYJ703.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:47:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne wrote: > 1. My question is does a penalty double relate to the specified suit (the suit that has been doubled)? Well, there will be certain "penalty" doubles that do relate to a specified suit (not necessarily the one that has been doubled). If, for example, you play that West North East South 1NT 2H* Dble *spades shows hearts, then that double certainly relates to the heart suit. If you also play that, for example: West North East South 1S Pass 1NT Pass 3NT Dble shows spades, then that double certainly relates to the spade suit. A Lightner double of a slam might also be considered to "relate to" the doubler's void suit if, by agreement, it asked for (say) the first suit bid by dummy. Other "penalty" doubles will not necessarily bear any relation to the suit doubled. A double of an opening 4S, if played as "penalty", is typically a strong balanced hand and not a spade stack; one would not say that this "related to" spades. Similarly, a double of an "obvious" sacrifice will not usually have any "relation" to the suit doubled (or any other). Each case would need to be considered on its merits. This, of course, will mean that different TDs and ACs would give different rulings on identical cases. C'est la guerre. > 2. While I am here, what about a takeout double? Unclear. The default meaning of a takeout double of 1H is: "I think we should play this hand in not-hearts". I don't think this has a close enough "relationship" with the heart suit that it falls within the purview of L26A. But given that the "standard interpretation" of L26A is quite mad anyway, I do not see that this matters very much. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 02:29:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QGPmm03235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:25:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QGPeH03227 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:25:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-119.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.119]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6148736DA6; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:21:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006b01c12e4a$f6040240$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:07:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: > > We have decided in an earlier thread that where dummy puts his cards >down so that one is hidden [which is an infraction] that the defenders >have a right to redress, ie they are not responsible for dummmy. I am meeting David in a couple of days, so all kind of possibilities to wash his ears. Therefore just a short remark from the chairman of the WBFLCat this stage: 'WE have decided ........', you are talking about this lovely group of BLMLers?. Now the good news, if WE didn't yet and YOU need it, I am willing to ask the LC to decide that defenders are not responsible for the stupidities from dummy. And a question to finish: might be interesting for the EBL-course next week: what law supports you to adjust the score (don't talk about revokes, I know that) 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 Aug 27 02:29:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QGPnw03236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:25:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QGPgH03228 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-119.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.119]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 707B536BDF; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:21:51 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006d01c12e4a$f753b3c0$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:18:36 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk + There has to be a lot of sympathy for the >argument that after a revoke card has been >called from dummy but the revoke has not yet >become established, it is sensible to allow >dummy to call attention to what may follow. >However, as has been rightly said the >irregularity has already happened; so the >position is that if dummy points out what is >about to happen next it is a communication of >something about the play. [Law 43A1(c)] >Early in the thread DB suggested it could be >looked at in Bali. I have noted this. It probably >needs a change of law if the position is not >judged to be satisfactory as it is, so it is likely >to become a referral from there to the drafting >sub-committee due to meet in Montreal. >(There is a suggestion that we might spend >four or five days privately at work in the >sub-committee, either before or after the >Tournament in Montreal. I am exploring the >feasibility of this.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+. You are joking? Let us make it a month. How to solve all these phantastic problems in 4 or 5 days. Why did nobody pick up my suggestion to have this covered by L 42B1: asking declarer whether he has a card of the suit led and pointing to the card in front of him. I know, you need some imagination, but not too much. 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 Aug 27 03:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QH09N03286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:00:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QGxtH03262 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:59:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-82-238.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.82.238] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15b3Cg-000GKz-00; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c12e50$537dcfa0$ee52063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20010826095622.CZYJ703.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:46:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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, August 26, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? > Wayne writes > >"LAW 26 - CALL WITHDRAWN, LEAD PENALTIES > >When an offending player’s call is > >withdrawn, and he chooses a different > >final call for that turn, then if he becomes a defender: > >A. Call Related to Specific Suit > >if the withdrawn call related to a specified suit or > >suits and..." > > > >1. My question is does a penalty double relate > >to the specified suit (the suit that has been > >doubled)? > > Pass. > > >2. While I am here, what about a takeout double? > > That is easy, no it does not. Mind you, it is easy > to say it, easy to believe it, but difficult to really > say why. > +=+ I would think a take-out double does not, a lead directing double does, so does a penalty pass of partner's t-o double, A penalty double? Yes when it can be read as based on a holding in the suit, no when it may be based solely on values. ~ 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 Aug 27 03:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QH0CW03291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:00:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QGxuH03264 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:59:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-82-238.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.82.238] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15b3Ci-000GKz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:56:08 +0100 Message-ID: <003801c12e50$547994c0$ee52063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific><001101c12d86$0ecf0380$93187ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:51:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... > Alternatively, why have we not been arguing > about the millenary? > +=+ It may be due to a readership that overwhelmingly cares little which of two equivalent words are employed. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 03:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QH0D903292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:00:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QGxwH03270 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 02:59:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-82-238.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.82.238] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15b3Cj-000GKz-00; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:56:10 +0100 Message-ID: <003901c12e50$557cfb00$ee52063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com><4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk><006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 17:56:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 4:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > I still think that if there were a "Law" on > how to change gear it is not impossible > that someone would write it > > 'A driver changes gear by depressing > the clutch, after which he moves the gear > lever accordingly.' > > This includes your comma, and does > not seem wrong to me. > +=+ Whereas I think the law would be written as 'by depressing the clutch and then moving the gear lever accordingly' +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 03:26:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QHNWt03345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:23:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QHNQH03341 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:23:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.159.45] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15b3ZT-0002DN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:19:39 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c12e53$4004bc60$2d9f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <006d01c12e4a$f753b3c0$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:18:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > Why did nobody pick up my suggestion to have this covered by L 42B1: asking > declarer whether he has a card of the suit led and pointing to the card in > front of him. I know, you need some imagination, but not too much. By a curious coincidence, I was wondering not ten minutes ago whether L42B1 could be used here. Since, like most of the other Laws, it contains some ambiguities, the answer is that of course it can. Here is the Law in all it splendour: Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. Now, the use of pronouns in English is a minefield for the linguist and the lawyer. It is entirely possible to construe this sentence as: Dummy may ask declarer when he [declarer] has failed to follow suit whether he [dummy] has a card of the suit led. Since declarer has "failed to follow suit" in playing from dummy, this construction would allow what we all think is - or ought to be - allowed anyway. Of course, it would not allow dummy to ask declarer about declarer's revoke from his own hand - but then you just use the other construction. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 03:34:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QHVNv03362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:31:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QHVHH03358 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:31:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from davishi (user-vcauid5.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.165]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28908 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:27:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <002401c12e54$5fcebf40$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 13:27:25 -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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > ----- Original Message ----- > From: David Stevenson > To: > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:12 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > > > > > > I do not believe that you have changed > > gear once you have depressed the clutch. > > > +=+ But in that case you do not have a > law that says you have. > Law 45B tells us that declarer plays > a card from dummy by naming it, and after > he has played the card dummy picks it up > etc. Be conscious of the comma in that > sentence. ~ G ~ +=+ > > There is indeed a comma in the sentence, which, as David has pointed out, makes the sentence ambiguous. When such a thing happens, there is a tendency to look at the context in which the sentence occurs to determine if the ambiguity can be resolved. The following sentence in L45B begins "In playing a card from Dummy's hand...", which suggests that the following action is part of playing the card. Further, L45B is entitled "Play of Card from Dummy" In it, two actions are specified: the naming of the card and the facing of the card. If facing the card is not part of "Play of Card from Dummy", why is it there at all? If it's not part of playing the card from Dummy, it belongs elsewhere (or at least clearly labelled something like "actions subsequent to the play of the card from dummy"). I would also suggest that a floor TD may not have the time needed to work out all of the grammatical nuances of the placement of a comma, nor should the LC have such a TD placed in the position of having to attempt to do so. Hirsch 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 Aug 27 03:38:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QHa4H03723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:36:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QHZwH03712 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:35:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.159.45] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15b3lM-0007TH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:31:57 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c12e54$f764e640$2d9f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij><003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <000601c12e08$ddd7ad80$4545063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:31:38 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ There has to be a lot of sympathy for the > argument that after a revoke card has been > called from dummy but the revoke has not yet > become established, it is sensible to allow > dummy to call attention to what may follow. > However, as has been rightly said the > irregularity has already happened; so the > position is that if dummy points out what is > about to happen next it is a communication of > something about the play. [Law 43A1(c)] True. But, as I may have suggested before, Law 42 supersedes Law 43. Thus, if dummy wants to communicate something about the play in order to prevent declarer from committing an irregularity, he may do so. After all, if dummy observes that declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand and says "You won the last trick in dummy", or "You're in dummy", that is a communication of something about the play, yet we are - I sincerely hope! - all agreed that this is a legitimate action by dummy. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 04:55:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QIsWt14002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:54:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl ([195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QIsQH13998 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:54:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-127.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.127]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1509A36E19; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:50:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00c701c12e5f$bbb42240$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 20:48:15 +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 > >> >1. My question is does a penalty double relate >> >to the specified suit (the suit that has been >> >doubled)? >> >2. While I am here, what about a takeout double? >> >> That is easy, no it does not. Mind you, it is easy >> to say it, easy to believe it, but difficult to really >> say why. WHY? >> >+=+ I would think a take-out double does not, a >lead directing double does, so does a penalty >pass of partner's t-o double, A penalty double? >Yes when it can be read as based on a holding >in the suit, no when it may be based solely on >values. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Once more it depends on how to read the laws? A take out double seems to be related to the suit it is a take out double of as is a penalty double. But did 'we' mean that? My feeling is that the answer is 'no'. Wasn't even this discussed before my time in our LC? There must have been some discussions then? 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 Aug 27 05:15:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QJFQG14023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:15:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QJFLH14019 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:15:21 +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 PAA10990 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09186 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:11:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108261911.PAA09186@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > ...you can either refuse to answer, which is illegal, or > answer, only to stand accused of knowing the answer, which is also > illegal. IMHO that requires a stronger word than "doublethink". While I don't want to comment on the merits of Eric's main argument, I think the word he is looking for is the coined word "catch 22." It is closely related to "Morton's fork." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 05:33:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QJWq314044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:32:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QJWlH14040 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 05:32:47 +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 PAA12944 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:29:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09438 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:29:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:29:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108261929.PAA09438@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Ton Kooijman" > A take out double seems to be related to the suit it is a take out double of > as is a penalty double. > But did 'we' mean that? My feeling is that the answer is 'no'. In my simple-minded way, I would have thought a takeout double is related to the (typically two or three) suits it _shows_. But I can see that other interpretations are possible. "Related to" could mean almost anything. A negative double is even worse: typically it shows values in the unbid major(s) and may imply values in minors. To which suits is it "related?" L26 came up before on BLML. There was some sentiment for letting declarer require or forbid _any_ single suit. This would certainly be a simplification, and it isn't obvious that it greatly impairs equity, at least in the case where the suit shown by the withdrawn call is not shown in the legal auction. Perhaps a partial solution is to add that declarer may not forbid leading in a suit in which leader's partner has shown values or leader's partner has requested be led. This would still require some bridge judgment, but it seems clearer than "related to." Of course if there are mechanical penalties, the withdrawn call should be AI but subject to L72B1. Another approach is simply to make the withdrawn call UI but enforce no mechanical restrictions. This preserves equity but has the usual disadvantage of such equity-based rulings. I think the drafting committee might well need more than four or five days (and I'm awfully glad I'm not on 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 Mon Aug 27 08:23:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QMMT219159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:22:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QMMMH19143 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:22:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-90-112.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.90.112] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15b8Ei-0006qp-00; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:18:33 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c12e7d$5f679c60$705a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , References: <006d01c12e4a$f753b3c0$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:35:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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 ; David Stevenson ; Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes > > Let us make it a month. How to solve all > these phantastic problems in 4 or 5 days. > +=+ Great idea. But we'll have seen some of Montreal by then, so let's flip to Acapulco or the Seychelles +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 08:28:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QMSPR20452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:28:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7QMSJH20436 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:28:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA16993 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA11407 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 18:24:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108262224.SAA11407@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > It occurs to me now that one reason for deleting the boxes could be > that both CCs of a partnership must be identical. What if one > partner psychs occasionally and the other never does? I guess you > could put a name under or over the appropriate box for each partner. In fact, Marv's guess was what the ACBL instructions (published in the Bulletin) said, except that instead of names, one was supposed to indicate seating position (N, E, S, W). In Marv's example, both cards might have an 'E' in the "occasional" box and a 'W' in the "never" box. This would have been a nuisance when seating positions changed, but at least the information would fit on the card and be meaningful to the opponents. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 08:46:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7QMk6U22461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:46:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7QMk0H22457 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:46:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-022.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.214]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA98456 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:42:07 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:42:32 +0100 Message-ID: <01C12E88.C6587380.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:42:31 +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 -----Original Message----- From: Ton Kooijman [SMTP:t.kooyman@worldonline.nl] Sent: 26 August 2001 17:08 To: David Stevenson; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) David St: > > We have decided in an earlier thread that where dummy puts his cards >down so that one is hidden [which is an infraction] that the defenders >have a right to redress, ie they are not responsible for dummmy. Ton wrote (snipped): Now the good news, if WE didn't yet and YOU need it, I am willing to ask the LC to decide that defenders are not responsible for the stupidities from dummy. And a question to finish: might be interesting for the EBL-course next week: what law supports you to adjust the score (don't talk about revokes, I know that) ton Maybe we can use 84E (with 41D being the irregularity). Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 10:53:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R0qUV05842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7R0qEH05810 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:14 +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 15bAZk-000LA9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:48:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:36:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes - the ultimate folly :-) References: <006b01c12e4a$f6040240$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <006b01c12e4a$f6040240$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> 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 >David St: >> We have decided in an earlier thread that where dummy puts his cards >>down so that one is hidden [which is an infraction] that the defenders >>have a right to redress, ie they are not responsible for dummmy. >I am meeting David in a couple of days, so all kind of possibilities to wash >his ears. Therefore just a short remark from the chairman of the WBFLCat >this stage: 'WE have decided ........', you are talking about this lovely >group of BLMLers?. Who else? I do not speak for the WBFLC, and do not claim to. Where they have promulgated something, I have been known to say "The WBFLC has said that ...." but I would not dream of saying "We ...." in such a case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 10:53:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R0qVF05844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R0qDH05806 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:14 +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 15bAZk-000LA7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:48:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:33:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <003801c12e3c$0ab2f3e0$41337ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003801c12e3c$0ab2f3e0$41337ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> But once a card is played the infraction has occurred and he can no >> longer prevent it. > >I am confused. You seem to me to be arguing in some other thread that >the card is not played until dummy has picked it up and played it, just >as you have not changed gear once you have depressed the clutch. I don't >actually agree with that - I think the card is played as soon as >declarer has named or otherwise designated it. Interesting. You think by my reading dummy should be able to stop an irregularity because the action is only part way through? >But the actual play of the card is not the "irregularity" that dummy is >trying to prevent. Of course you cannot prevent something once it has >occurred. What dummy is trying to do is to prevent declarer from >breaking Law 62A - that is, from proceeding with the play of the hand >having become aware of, but failed to correct, a revoke. But, unless dummy communicates with partner, he is not aware of it, so he is not in breach of L62A, so this is not an irregularity that dummy can prevent. >It my be argued - indeed, if I understand you correctly, you do argue - >that dummy is acting ultra vires in drawing declarer's attention to the >revoke. But his doing so is, in my view, a legitimate attempt to prevent >an irregular play by declarer - not the revoke itself, but leaving it >uncorrected. In this context, the question of whether L42 supersedes L43 >or vice versa is important. I just do not see where it is legitimate. And I do not see what this business about L42 and L43 is about. You are permitted to attempt to prevent an irregularity by declarer but not to draw attention to one when it is made. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 10:53:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R0qTS05840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R0qDH05801 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:13 +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 15bAZk-000LAA-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:48:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:41:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? References: <200108261929.PAA09438@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200108261929.PAA09438@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 willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes >> From: "Ton Kooijman" >> A take out double seems to be related to the suit it is a take out double of >> as is a penalty double. >> But did 'we' mean that? My feeling is that the answer is 'no'. > >In my simple-minded way, I would have thought a takeout double is >related to the (typically two or three) suits it _shows_. But I can see >that other interpretations are possible. > "Related to" could mean almost >anything. A negative double is even worse: typically it shows values in >the unbid major(s) and may imply values in minors. To which suits is it >"related?" > >L26 came up before on BLML. There was some sentiment for letting >declarer require or forbid _any_ single suit. This would certainly be >a simplification, and it isn't obvious that it greatly impairs equity, >at least in the case where the suit shown by the withdrawn call is not >shown in the legal auction. Perhaps a partial solution is to add that >declarer may not forbid leading in a suit in which leader's partner has >shown values or leader's partner has requested be led. This would >still require some bridge judgment, but it seems clearer than "related >to." Of course if there are mechanical penalties, the withdrawn call >should be AI but subject to L72B1. Do we really get these difficulties in other cases apart from doubles? Perhaps redoubles, yes. How about having L26A only apply to bids: doubles, redoubles and passes have to be dealt with by L26B? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 10:53:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R0qRA05837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7R0qDH05800 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:52:13 +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 15bAZk-000L9v-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:48:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:26:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes References: <006d01c12e4a$f753b3c0$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <006d01c12e4a$f753b3c0$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman writes >Why did nobody pick up my suggestion to have this covered by L 42B1: asking >declarer whether he has a card of the suit led and pointing to the card in >front of him. I know, you need some imagination, but not too much. Because, Ton, we assumed you were joking. If you are serious, then using a Law that clearly does not apply to the case for the sole purpose of communicating illegally with partner is one of the most serious offences in bridge, and I cannot believe you want someone to do this. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 12:33:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R2WYi20262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:32:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7R2WSH20258 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:32:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.163.2] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15bC8l-0007mW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <004801c12e9f$f1609140$02a301d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <003801c12e3c$0ab2f3e0$41337ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:28:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Interesting. You think by my reading dummy should be able to stop an > irregularity because the action is only part way through? No, of course I don't, any more than you understand what really happens when you change gear. As far as I could see, you were attempting to advocate that a card played (through being named by declarer) from dummy was not actually played until dummy had placed it in the played position. If that were so, then of course dummy could prevent declarer failing to follow suit in dummy. But you seemed to me to be advocating that on the one hand, a card was not "played" just because declarer had named it, and on the other that once declarer had named a card, it was "played", so that it was too late to prevent declarer committing the irregularity of revoking. To put this as clearly as I can, you have said: >I am not sure about this interpretation. To change gear on a car, you >Depress the clutch >AFTER depressing the clutch you move the gear lever. >I do not believe that you have changed gear once you have depressed >the clutch. This means, if I have construed you correctly, that you do not believe a card to have been played from dummy once declarer has named it (per L45B, which you recently advised me to read); dummy has to pick it up and move it to a played position before it has been played. If you do not mean this, please explain to me the significance of the words above. You have also said: >You are too late for [a] [the infraction has occurred] This means, if I have construed you correctly, that once declarer has named a card, he has played it, and dummy can do nothing to prevent it from being a played card (as by saying "You can't play that card - it's a revoke"). If you do not mean this, please explain to me the significance of the words above. Now, I am aware that you are particularly sensitive to being misquoted, or to having your words interpreted out of context. I have absolutely no wish to do this, but I confess nyself totally bewildered by the conflicting messages that I derive from the opinions you have voiced. I assure you that, contrary to your recent somewhat patronising remark, I am as capable of reading and understanding English words as you are. I don't, in either of the cases under discussion, have any difficulty in interpreting the Law to accord with universal practice and common sense, but I have the gravest difficulty in working out what on earth you are talking about. > I just do not see where it is legitimate. And I do not see what this > business about L42 and L43 is about. You are permitted to attempt to > prevent an irregularity by declarer but not to draw attention to one > when it is made. You are (because L42 supersedes L43) permitted to prevent declarer from failing to correct a revoke once attention has been drawn to it, even though you are the person who drew attention to it. Whether or not you are permitted to be the person who drew attention to it is questionable, but since there would be no penalty for it in any case, this scarcely matters. There are a great many things that you do not see. They are not ipso facto invisible. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 13:17:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R3HV420308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:17:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7R3HPH20304 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:17:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.1.163.2] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15bCqI-0000lQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:13:39 +0100 Message-ID: <006001c12ea6$39de3fc0$02a301d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <006d01c12e4a$f753b3c0$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:13:19 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Ton Kooijman writes > > >Why did nobody pick up my suggestion to have this covered by L 42B1: asking > >declarer whether he has a card of the suit led and pointing to the card in > >front of him. I know, you need some imagination, but not too much. > > Because, Ton, we assumed you were joking. He was not. When I first read that dummy might be in breach of Law when telling declarer that he was not allowed to revoke from dummy, I assumed that this was a joke. It has since been borne in upon me that this was not a joke - it was a serious question. That there is a group of people prepared to treat the question seriously is, I assure you, regarded as a complete joke by everyone to whom I have communicated the fact. You need a sense of humour in this business. We should be grateful that Ton, Grattan, and Kojak have got one. We should not try their patience too far; in return, we should proof-read their output carefully, lest some opportunity for ridicule may have slipped in. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 15:35:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R5ZIa10133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:35:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7R5ZDH10121 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:35:14 +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 OAA07214 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:07:24 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:49:27 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:50:11 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/08/2001 01:53:15 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Grenside (as quoted by Peter Gill) wrote: >The hardest part of directing is to know where to find >the law you are looking for. I once set a straightforward >directors' exam with every answer requiring both the law >number and paragraph with ancillary laws. Where >appropriate, the use of Rule Books was permitted. >10 questions, 3 hours later, most of the applicants were >still scouring the rule book with many complaining that >although they knew the ruling, they couldn't find it. IMHO, the wording of the Laws has improved with each revision of TFLB. [eg The specific distinction the Scope makes between *should* and *shall*.] However, also IMHO, the formatting of TFLB is terrible. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that when the WBF updates the Laws, they use the previous format as a template. There are many business courses available which teach how to logically present information. [I attended such a course recently, Information Mapping (TM).] Perhaps a member of the WBF LC could attend a similar course. It would be helpful for the average TD if the next edition of TFLB was totally reformatted so as to be more user- friendly. 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 Aug 27 16:56:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R6ta713642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:55:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R6tVH13638 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7R6pjR20919 for ; Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:51:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006e01c12ec4$a88d8840$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:45:50 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > Richard Grenside (as quoted by Peter Gill) wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that when the > WBF updates the Laws, they use the previous format as a > template. > I too have had that impression. It's a natural way to make changes, but one has to be careful. It will sometimes happen that the text of some Law is changed without noticing that the title of the Law is no longer accurate. While titles are not Laws, I am told, they should agree with the Laws. 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 Aug 27 17:16:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R7Fee13677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:15:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R7FZH13673 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:15:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7R7BnR01622 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009001c12ec7$76239ea0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3B66B8DD.2D0AC08F@pn2.vsnl.net.in> <001701c1228b$3cfb8680$0200000a@davishi> <4.3.2.7.1.20010812171314.00b22750@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:04:24 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Eric Landau writes > > >However, I feel compelled as an ACBL TD to recall the notorious "Oh > >s--t" case of a year or two ago, noting that it was reported in the > >ACBL bulletin as a decision which the reportage did not criticize or > >suggest to be in error, and which has thus become established case > >law. > > It is not case law. It was roundly criticised by various publications > and is accepted as being a ruling in error. The case-book says it was > wrong [broadly - the case-book never has 100% opinions]. The ACBL LC > have since pronounced and they do not support the O sh*t ruling. Later > cases from the NABCs make it clear that the O sh*t case is not accepted > as case law. > The ACBLLC issued the following interpretation at the San Antonio NABC 24 July 1999: After a quote of the current Law there follows (summarized): ######## A. While it may be difficult to identify an inadvertent action, it is sometimes easier to define what it is not. It is not a slip of the mind, such as passing a splinter bid by partner. It is not a change of mind, as when a declarer leads toward an AQ and calls for the queen without looking to see what LHO played. No matter how fast the change is made, even with no pause for thought, it is NOT INADVERTENT. B. In determining "inadvertent" the burden of proof (of inadvertency) is on the declarer. The standard of proof is "overwhelming." C. In judging "without pause for thought," if declarer has made a play after making an inadvertent designation from dummy, a "pause for thought" has occurred--no change in designation is to be permitted. If declarer's RHO has played and there is any reasonable possibility that information gained from RHO's play could suggest that declarer's play from dummy was a mistake, a "pause for thought" has occurred--no change in designation is to be permitted. In determining that there was no "pause for thought," the director may judge so even though there has been a pause between the inadvertency and the indication by the player committing the inadvertent action [sic]. There should be no pause, however, between the awareness of the inadvertent action and drawing attention to it. The bottom line is that there is to be a strong presumption that the card called is the card that was intended to be called. ######### 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 Aug 27 17:22:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R7MLn13690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:22:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R7MFH13686 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:22:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-51-45.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.51.45] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15bGfA-000ETV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c12ec8$cafd0140$2d337bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij><003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <000601c12e08$ddd7ad80$4545063e@dodona> <002201c12e54$f764e640$2d9f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:19:38 +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, August 26, 2001 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes > True. But, as I may have suggested before, Law 42 > supersedes Law 43. Thus, if dummy wants to > communicate something about the play in order to > prevent declarer from committing an irregularity, > he may do so. > +=+ Of course, we agree absolutely. There is that 'if'. To the pure in heart, and also to me, there remains the uneasiness of thinking that dummy actually appears to be intent on prevention of consequences of an irregularity committed. ~ 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 Aug 27 18:15:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R8Esq13719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:14:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R8EmH13715 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:14:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25977 invoked by uid 50005); 27 Aug 2001 08:11:46 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpe with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4151. . Clean. Processed in 0.228865 secs); 27 Aug 2001 08:11:46 -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 ; 27 Aug 2001 08:11:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 11568 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2001 08:10:59 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 27 Aug 2001 08:10:59 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 04:11:04 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:50:11 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: > >IMHO, the wording of the Laws has improved with each >revision of TFLB. [eg The specific distinction the Scope >makes between *should* and *shall*.] > >However, also IMHO, the formatting of TFLB is terrible. >Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that when the >WBF updates the Laws, they use the previous format as a >template. > >There are many business courses available which teach how >to logically present information. [I attended such a course >recently, Information Mapping (TM).] Perhaps a member of >the WBF LC could attend a similar course. > >It would be helpful for the average TD if the next edition >of TFLB was totally reformatted so as to be more user- >friendly. > Rather than have a member of the WBFLC attend such a course, I have an alternative suggestion. I've made my living in the last 20 years from the software industry. While I claim a reasonable degree of competence in writing code, I claim very little in writing manuals, even though it has frequently been seen as part of my job. Just two of the more enlightened large companies for whom I have worked have employed a full-time technical writer to do the manuals. In each case, said individual sat through a demo from me of the software I had written, took copious notes and a copy of the software, asked numerous follow up questions by phone, and at the end of a couple of weeks, produced a manual that I couldn't have come close to for clarity and comprehensiveness had I been given a couple of years to write it, let alone a couple of weeks. I'm willing to take a bet that *somewhere* out there is a good professional technical writer who is also a long-standing bridge player, and probably even a TD. My suggestion to the WBFLC is that you need to find such an individual, probably via advertisements in the house magazines of selected NCBOs. Then have your deliberations, after which (this may be the difficult part) you need to delegate **ONE** of your number, in a time zone close to that of your selected writer, who is prepared to give (almost) immediate answers to questions, even if you have to insist that they're only provisional answers. Then you let the technical writer get on with the job, given a current version of TFLB, a list of the changes you wish to make, and a list of your *high level* requirements, e.g. "Do not change the ordering of the major sections of the current book". Apart from such aspects which you feel CANNOT be changed - and the list should be as short as possible - give carte blanche to reformat the law book in any way which the technical writer believes will add to its clarity. If you manage to find a *good* technical writer, I suspect you will be as pleasantly surprised by the first draft of the new FLB as I was with the manuals that I was given. One likely outcome, of course, is that you may lose an awful lot of the 'flexibility' in the laws that has been mentioned so often on BLML. Some may see this as a danger, others may see it as desirable, I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other! I suppose I'd better state explicitly that this posting isn't meant to cast doubts on the writing ability of any specific individual(s), but (just as I was with the computer programs which I wrote) the members of the WBFLC are IMHO too closely involved with the process of generating the input to TFLB to also do a good job of writing it. 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 Mon Aug 27 18:29:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7R8ThH13732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:29:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7R8TbH13728 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:29:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-37-146.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.37.146] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15bHiM-0005ce-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:25:47 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c12ed2$34524020$2d337bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 09:27:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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, August 27, 2001 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > However, also IMHO, the formatting of > TFLB is terrible. Correct me if I am wrong, > but it seems to me that when the WBF > updates the Laws, they use the previous > format as a template. > +=+ Edgar made a virtue of doing so. He thought it advantageous to keep subjects attached to the same Law numbers from generation to generation. On at least one occasion we did split a Law into two in order not to disturb the numbering of the subsequent Laws. It is now up to us to decide afresh when we lay out the results of the present General Review. As I would think it down to me to put the recommendations on paper I would be seeking to achieve a more user-friendly presentation whether the sub-committee opts to continue the Kaplan approach or not. My guess is that it will, yet if I make this clear to them they might do something else :-)). But it needs the approval of the sub-committee, the WBFLC, and passively at least the WBF Executive, to realize the product of our dreams. ~ 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 Aug 27 21:25:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RBNfc15180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:23:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7RBNZH15176 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:23:35 +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 NAA16368; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:16:22 +0200 (MEST) 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 NAA13472; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:19:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <013001c12eea$b7e2bec0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: , References: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2E2A@GARFIELD> Subject: Re: [BLML] Only the brave Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:23:37 +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 ----- > I am here ... keeping very quiet in such august company ! We'd rather hasten then. For this will be september company in a short time.:-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 Mon Aug 27 22:19:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RCItJ19042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:18:55 +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 f7RCIlH19011 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:18:49 +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 f7RCEx894154 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 08:14:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010827075706.00ab9da0@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, 27 Aug 2001 08:17:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors In-Reply-To: <002501c12da8$143bbee0$c32d7bd5@dodona> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010824081611.00aef9d0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010825131728.00ab7d10@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:51 PM 8/25/01, Grattan wrote: > The point about UI is that you may >possess it, indeed you do possess it, but >you are not permitted to use it. But the prohibition against the use of extraneous information comes from L16, which has three explicit laws, which prohibit the use of extraneous information (A) "from Partner", (B) "from Other Sources" (as defined in the text), or (C) "from Withdrawn Calls and Plays". There is nothing in L16 which suggests characterizing information which you *yourself* are required to determine (which you must be, if you are required to reveal it to your opponents) as extraneous or unauthorized. Nor is there anything in L73 or L75 which suggests the possibility of your being required to reveal to your opponents any information which you yourself are not permitted to use. L16 requires that you do not use information which has been improperly obtained (A & B) or obtained as the result of your own side's infraction (C). Information which you are are required to have, so that you can properly disclose it, surely cannot be considered to have been improperly obtained, or obtained as the result of an infraction. Neither common sense nor anything in TFLB support the idea that information that you are *required* by the laws to have would be subject to L16. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Aug 27 22:42:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RCgDX19989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:42:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7RCg7H19985 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:42:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f7RCcKL10895 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:38:20 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes 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: <001801c12e53$4004bc60$2d9f7ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > By a curious coincidence, I was wondering not ten minutes ago whether > L42B1 could be used here. Since, like most of the other Laws, it > contains some ambiguities, the answer is that of course it can. Here is > the Law in all it splendour: > > Dummy may ask declarer (but not a defender) when he has failed to follow > suit to a trick whether he has a card of the suit led. This doesn't even require linguistic twisting. Since this law doesn't specify which of the two hands that declarer is playing it refers to there is no reason why it can't apply to both. > > Since declarer has "failed to follow suit" in playing from dummy, this > construction would allow what we all think is - or ought to be - allowed > anyway. If we are looking to change the laws might I suggest that even if we maintain the situation that "asking is illegal" (in certain situations) we go for something like "any player, including dummy, may draw attention to a revoke and in such cases the revoke must be corrected without penalty*". If someone "illegally draws attention" to a non-revoke then give a PP. IIRC correctly the issue about asking partner in defence was about defenders abusing the privilege to draw attention to unexpected length with declarer - such abuse would not be profitable under the above limits. * apart from MPC penalties. 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 Aug 28 00:41:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7REdtb20030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:39:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7REdnH20026 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:39:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15bNUc-000Gno-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:36:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 11:55:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy Revokes References: <003b01c11c05$af73ca60$a5b6f1c3@tkooij> <003101c11c99$a9b88220$229e7ad5@pbncomputer> <003801c12e3c$0ab2f3e0$41337ad5@pbncomputer> <004801c12e9f$f1609140$02a301d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004801c12e9f$f1609140$02a301d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Interesting. You think by my reading dummy should be able to stop >an >> irregularity because the action is only part way through? > >No, of course I don't, any more than you understand what really happens >when you change gear. I did say "by my reading". [s] >Now, I am aware that you are particularly sensitive to being misquoted, >or to having your words interpreted out of context. I have absolutely no >wish to do this, but I confess nyself totally bewildered by the >conflicting messages that I derive from the opinions you have voiced. I >assure you that, contrary to your recent somewhat patronising remark, I >am as capable of reading and understanding English words as you are. I >don't, in either of the cases under discussion, have any difficulty in >interpreting the Law to accord with universal practice and common sense, >but I have the gravest difficulty in working out what on earth you are >talking about. OK, I shall try one more time. In my view, playing a card is not an instantaneous act [compare the way declarer plays a card]. Is it legitimate for dummy to attempt to prevent an irregularity part way through the act of playing a card? >> I just do not see where it is legitimate. And I do not see what >this >> business about L42 and L43 is about. You are permitted to attempt to >> prevent an irregularity by declarer but not to draw attention to one >> when it is made. > >You are (because L42 supersedes L43) permitted to prevent declarer from >failing to correct a revoke once attention has been drawn to it, even >though you are the person who drew attention to it. Whether or not you >are permitted to be the person who drew attention to it is questionable, >but since there would be no penalty for it in any case, this scarcely >matters. There are a great many things that you do not see. They are not >ipso facto invisible. It may not matter to you, but to most of us it matters whether you are permitted to do something. Actually, you are telling a fib: you do not do things you are not permitted to, so it does matter to you. In this thread we are trying to find out what is permitted. Confusing this with how much it matters does not help. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 03:52:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RHpYc24140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:51:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7RHpSH24136 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7RHlfR28920 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00bf01c12f20$486322c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B920@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <002201c12bfe$1944a060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010824081611.00aef9d0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010825131728.00ab7d10@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:46:59 -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: "Eric Landau" > David wrote: > > >Eric wrote: > > > > > Whatever the rationale for various NCBOs' dropping or retaining the > > > boxes on the CC was, I cannot accept that it was based on the > > > ridiculous premise that information which you yourself have written on > > > your own CC might be unauthorized for you. > > > >On the contrary. The official position appears to me to be that although > >the opponents are allowed to know the extent to which your partnership > >makes psychic bids, your partnership itself is not. For if it did, then > >the bids themselves would not be psyches but part of your "system" - > >and, of course, subject to whatever constraints on system are permitted. > >It is a curious kind of doublethink, but it is more or less forced by > >Law and regulation. I do not accept this conclusion. Violations of system do not necessarily become a part of the system. > > I don't follow the argument here. "System" is about the agreed meaning > (or possible meaning) of particular calls. So if you have an > understanding about situations in which you are more or less likely to > psych, or about the type of hand you might hold when you do, that's > "system". But I don't see how whether you will or you won't, or how > frequently you might, independent of situation or hand type, can be > considered "system". Sort of like calling the "agreement" that you > will call only after RHO and before LHO part of your "system". > > It would seem that the "official position" is a case of your not being > allowed to possess information that you are nevertheless required to > supply. So if an opponent asks you about partner's psyching > tendencies, you can either refuse to answer, which is illegal, or > answer, only to stand accused of knowing the answer, which is also > illegal. IMHO that requires a stronger word than "doublethink". > I agree with Eric, but do have problems with the boxes anyway. I have been mulling over this subject for a number of days now, and have come to one conclusion: If a pair never psychs, they can have confidence in each other's bidding even when a psych might be a likely assumption going by the logic of the auction. Opponents, if they are unaware of this (derived, if not explicit) partnership agreement, are put at a disadvantage. They may suspect a psych when a psych was (nearly) impossible, and perhaps get into trouble. Since psychs are accepted as a part of the game, those agreeing not to use them must disclose that partnership understanding to opponents. Having done so, may one of them psych for the first time? Yes, it's okay to violate a partnership agreement if partner won't expect it. However, the agreement not to psych is then no longer in force. But suppose the psycher (Joe) is told by partner that his action will end the partnership if it happens again, and Joe agrees not to psych henceforth. New agreement, disclosable, but with the caveat, "Joe once violated this agreement, but has promised not to do it again." Now a psych by Joe is not acceptable. I can't say exactly why, but it's not. Or, if Joe insists on one-sided psyching, his partner should disclose that: "I never psych, but my partner does." The frequency of psychs, and the occasions when they might be employed, are much more difficult disclosure subjects, possibly intractable. We don't disclose that partner is prone to underleading aces on the opening lead, or overbidding/underbidding in certain situations, or that we are having a great game or rotten game, and so forth, all of which may affect our game in ways the opponents will not expect. Perhaps the frequency of psychs is also not a matter for disclosure. 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 Aug 28 04:21:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RILjZ24162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:21:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7RILdH24158 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 04:21:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-86-246.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.86.246] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15bQxI-00021T-00; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:17:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c12f24$e8aa7d60$f656063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "David Stevenson" , References: <00c701c12e5f$bbb42240$e2b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:17:01 +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 ; David Stevenson ; Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Does double relate to a specified suit? > > >> > >+=+ I would think a take-out double does not, a > >lead directing double does, so does a penalty > >pass of partner's t-o double, A penalty double? > >Yes when it can be read as based on a holding > >in the suit, no when it may be based solely on > >values. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Once more it depends on how to read the laws? > A take out double seems to be related to the > suit it is a take out double of as is a penalty > double. But did 'we' mean that? My feeling is > that the answer is 'no'. Wasn't even this discussed > before my time in our LC? There must have been > some discussions then? > > ton > +=+ But of course we must be careful when using 'relate to' in our discussion: 'related to' applies in the preamble of 26A, in discussing the call that has been withdrawn. In considering what has happened in the legal auction Law 26 is concerned with whether the suit was specified or was not specified. We did spend some time in deciding on 'specified'; we thought of one or two ways in which a suit might be 'specified' in the legal auction but we left it to Directors/ACs to determine whether a suit had been 'specified' in any given instance. (It is unwise to list things where it is difficult to envisage all the current, let alone the future, possibilities.) When we said 'specified' we had in mind that it would be showing a holding in the suit; however, I agree that a cue bid of a void in a suit relates to that suit, and if the cue bid - or any call that relates to the suit (could be a double is withdrawn I think we have to interpret 'specified' to include any call that points to the suit in question. How we express this could be a little tricky - it has something in common with the definition of 'convention': we know it when we see it. (I have indicated already that it is my opinion that a penalty double of the suit that may have been made on general values does not necessarily point to the suit. ~ 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 Aug 28 05:05:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RJ56S24189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 05:05:06 +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 f7RJ50H24185 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 05:05:01 +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 PAA19073 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA21609 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:01:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108271901.PAA21609@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > We don't disclose that partner is prone to underleading > aces on the opening lead, or overbidding/underbidding in certain > situations, or that we are having a great game or rotten game, and > so forth, all of which may affect our game in ways the opponents > will not expect. Perhaps the frequency of psychs is also not a > matter for disclosure. Or perhaps the aforementioned matters _are_ subject to disclosure? I have said before that I don't think the laws have a consistent position as regards partnership understandings. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 06:48:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RKlqG24232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:47:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7RKlkH24228 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7RKhxR21455 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010601c12f38$e78f8060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200108271901.PAA21609@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:42:05 -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: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > We don't disclose that partner is prone to underleading > > aces on the opening lead, or overbidding/underbidding in certain > > situations, or that we are having a great game or rotten game, and > > so forth, all of which may affect our game in ways the opponents > > will not expect. Perhaps the frequency of psychs is also not a > > matter for disclosure. > > Or perhaps the aforementioned matters _are_ subject to disclosure? But that is a bottomless pit. It is impossible to disclose everything we know about partner's game, or just how good or bad we are doing in an event. A reasonably-sized set of instructions for filling out convention cards and for pre-disclosure should suffice, if carefully written. > > I have said before that I don't think the laws have a consistent > position as regards partnership understandings. Not well-defined, anyway. What inferences regarding partner's bidding can be said to have been derived from "general knowledge and experience" (L75C), which varies geographically? I think ZAs should provide a generic document defining what is "general knowledge." I have continual difficulty with our unAlerted double jump in a new suit in response to a one-of-a-suit natural opening. General knowledge is that this is a preemptive bid, showing a good long suit and a very weak hand. Per L75C that inference need not be disclosed, and yet TDs hereabouts insist that it must be explained to our ignorant life master opponents. 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 Aug 28 07:48:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RLm7c00359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:48:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7RLm1H00355 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:48:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7RLiER26070 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013501c12f41$51a17500$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:40:04 -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 From: "Brian Meadows" > > I'm willing to take a bet that *somewhere* out there is a good > professional technical writer who is also a long-standing bridge > player, and probably even a TD. My suggestion to the WBFLC is > that you need to find such an individual, probably via > advertisements in the house magazines of selected NCBOs. Then > have your deliberations, after which (this may be the difficult > part) you need to delegate **ONE** of your number, in a time zone > close to that of your selected writer, who is prepared to give > (almost) immediate answers to questions, even if you have to > insist that they're only provisional answers. Then you let the > technical writer get on with the job, given a current version of > TFLB, a list of the changes you wish to make, and a list of your > *high level* requirements, e.g. "Do not change the ordering of > the major sections of the current book". Apart from such aspects > which you feel CANNOT be changed - and the list should be as > short as possible - give carte blanche to reformat the law book > in any way which the technical writer believes will add to its > clarity. > > If you manage to find a *good* technical writer, I suspect you > will be as pleasantly surprised by the first draft of the new FLB > as I was with the manuals that I was given. Excellent suggestion, Brian, but in the case of bridge I think the technical writer would need a very good grasp of the game and an intimate knowledge of the adjudication problems that have been associated with the Laws. Any nominations? I think immediately of Brian Baresch, whose profession is "editing, writing, proofreading," according to his signature. Getting the "one person" interface is fine, but only if every decision/instruction is reviewed and approved (in timely fashion) by the WBFLC. I don't think a time zone difference between writer and interfacer is important. If using a technical writer isn't possible, at least get a good editor who can improve the punctuation and reduce the "Fog Index." 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 Aug 28 07:58:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7RLwA700373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:58:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7RLw5H00369 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:58:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7RLsIR13913 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013a01c12f42$b9108860$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200108261911.PAA09186@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 14:52:02 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > ...you can either refuse to answer, which is illegal, or > > answer, only to stand accused of knowing the answer, which is also > > illegal. IMHO that requires a stronger word than "doublethink". > > While I don't want to comment on the merits of Eric's main argument, I > think the word he is looking for is the coined word "catch 22." It is > closely related to "Morton's fork." Ashamed to say I had to look up the latter. I knew what it meant, but where did it come from? What I found was: The Morton's Fork Coup is a maneuver by which declarer presents a defender with a choice of taking a trick cheaply, or ducking to preserve an honor combination, either decision costing the defense a trick. If the defender wins the trick, he sets up an extra high card in the suit, while if he ducks, his winner disappears because declarer has a discard possibility. The name is derived from an episode in English history. Cardinal Morton, Chancellor under King Henry VII, habitually extracted taxes from wealthy London merchants for the royal treasury. His approach was that if the merchants lived ostentatiously, they obviously had sufficient income to spare for the king. Alternatively, if they lived frugally, they must have substantial savings and could therefore afford to contribute to the king's coffers. In either case they were impaled on "Morton's Fork". Caught between Scylla and Charybdis, or between a rock and a hard place. 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 Aug 28 10:22:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S0KQ702986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:20:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7S0KKH02982 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:20:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA63493 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:16:26 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:16:51 +0100 Message-ID: <01C12F5F.1DBE64A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:16:49 +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 You learn something new everyday! N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds (Transfer). The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). If East bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. If East bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. Correct? 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 Aug 28 10:32:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S0WMS02999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:32:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7S0WGH02995 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:32:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-019.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.211]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA65326 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:28:23 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:28:48 +0100 Message-ID: <01C12F60.C98FE0A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] RE: Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:28:47 +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 Just spotted a 'typo'. You learn something new everyday! N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds (Transfer). The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). If South bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. If South bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. Correct? 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 Aug 28 12:27:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S2R2D11172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:27:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7S2QtH11168 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:26:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.5/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f7S2K2g13630 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:20:03 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01C12F60.C98FE0A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> References: <01C12F60.C98FE0A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:16:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] RE: Law 31 Surprise Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Fearghal O'Boyle writes: >If South bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >If South bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. > >Correct? Looks that way to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO4sAgL2UW3au93vOEQL9MACghttyGSJWR271V+fy0ceI8HBfZQMAoKJh wVYcA8lS+7RMAfoGCU8yi7l4 =K9Qz -----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 Aug 28 17:19:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S7IB425137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:18:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7S7I5H25133 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:18:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7S7EHR28122 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <015901c12f90$ee686660$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006701c121ac$37244560$2b4b7bd5@pacific> <001101c12d86$0ecf0380$93187ad5@pbncomputer> <000901c12e29$81b2cc80$41337ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] To protect or not protect... Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:13:21 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > DWS wrote: > > > Why not a decennium? Alternatively, why have we not been arguing > > about the millenary? > > We could have done. The words "decennary" and "decennium" are > synonymous - as, to save further correspondence on this less than > riveting topic, are the words "centenary" and "century", also > "millenary" and "millennium". Did you really expect I would not get into this? They are not quite synonymous, since "decennary" and "centenary" can be either nouns or adjectives, while "decennium" and "millenium" are nouns only. > In common usage, one employs words such as > "centenary" for a hundredth anniversary, and "century" for a period of a > hundred years, but it is not wrong to say that we are now in the 21st > centenary (please, no more about which year of the 21st centenary). I do > not know why "centenary" is not spelt "centennary", Because, as in "millenary," the n is not usually doubled when followed by "ary" or "arian." "Decennary" therefore looks wrong, but it isn't, because the Latin "decinn(is)" (of 10 years) from which it comes had two n's. "Annus" (year) is buried in that word. When referring to tithing, "decenary" is an acceptable alternative spelling. The "n" is always doubled for "ennium" or "ennial" endings because of the "annus" that is part of their derivation. Words ending with "nary" and "narian" do not have an "annus" in their suffixes' derivations, so no double-n. My father will be 100 in September, becoming a centenarian. He was 99 last year, but on January 1, 2000 he had lived in every year of the 20th century, all 100 of them. Ponder that. A millenarian, by the way, is not a 1000-year-old person, but one who has superstitious beliefs about the ending of a millennium. > nor why > "centen(n)ium" is not given in Chambers. "nn" would no doubt be correct, but the word is not in my big Random House Unabridged Dictionary either. Probably "century" suffices in the current language. Our family will be celebrating the centennium (century) of my father's life, which began on the day he was born in 1901 and will end with his centennial birthday in 2001. I'm sorry now that I got into this, and probably so is everyone else. 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 Aug 28 17:31:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S7Vaq25150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:31:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7S7VVH25146 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:31:32 +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 RAA28506 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:35:25 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:17:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:22:27 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/08/2001 05:21:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Does the game of Bridge exist, other than what is circumscribed by the current Laws? My answer is both yes and no. The Spirit of The Game, IMHO, demands that the Laws be changed whenever the legal actuality of Bridge falls short of the platonic ideal of Bridge. In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' Bulletin, there was a report on (as yet unratified) recommendations of the Zone 7 Laws Commission. Two Law changes they recommended in The Spirit of The Game were: [big snip] >2. Any player (except dummy) may draw attention >to an irregularity after it has occurred. Dummy >may only draw attention to an irregularity that has >occurred after play of the hand has concluded. > >Adopting this simple approach would allow most of >Laws 9A, 42B and 61B to be deleted. [big snip] >10. Law 65B. There was discussion about New >Zealand's regulation that permits dummy or defender >to stop partner from pointing a trick the wrong >way. All were agreed that it should be in the >spirit of the game to allow this to happen, but >only at the time the player attempts to commit the >infraction, certainly not after any player has >played to the next trick. Nevertheless, there was >concern that this regulation could be in conflict >with the Laws as they are currently written and at >the next revision, the committee would like the >Law changed to reflect this. [big snip] It seems that the Zone 7 Laws Commission believes that The Spirit of The Game demands quicker rectification of irregularities. Alas, I must disagree. To me, The Spirit of The Game is Law 73A1. 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 Aug 28 18:24:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S8Nr025192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:23:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7S8NlH25188 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:23:48 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:20:29 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EE@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:20:29 +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 Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >You learn something new everyday! > > >N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. > >North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds (Transfer). >The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. >East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). > >If East bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >If East bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. > >Correct? You probably mean: If SOUTH bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. If SOUTH bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. No, just the other way around. If South bids 2D (or any other diamond bid), North must pass once. If South bids anything else, North must pass throughout. According to the definitions, a denomination is the suit or notrump specified in a bid. Therefore, the denomination of South's bid was Diamonds, not Hearts. It does not matter what the original 2D-bid, or any replacement, means. Note that this is quite different from insufficient bids, where the meaning of the original bid does matter. And note also that if a lead penalty is to be given to North, that this is in hearts - now the meaning of the withdrawn 2D-bid is important. -- 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 Aug 28 18:28:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S8SgY25205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:28:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anagyris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7S8SaH25201 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:28:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by anagyris.wanadoo.fr; 28 Aug 2001 10:24:40 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.249.79.106) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 28 Aug 2001 10:24:19 +0200 Message-ID: <001e01c12f9a$b73bc060$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C12F5F.1DBE64A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:23:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > You learn something new everyday! > > > N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. > > North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds (Transfer). > The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. > East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). > > If East bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. > If East bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. I think you mean "South" ! > > Correct? Correct, Hearts are the denomination of 1NT ... 2D. If South bid 4/6 H, North must pass one round either. > > Best regards, Idem > Fearghal. Olivier > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 19:36:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7S9ZuO26119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:35:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7S9ZoH26115 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:35:51 +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 LAA10896; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:28:37 +0200 (MEST) 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 LAA07450; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:31:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <009c01c12fa4$d4d2a080$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C12F5F.1DBE64A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001e01c12f9a$b73bc060$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:35:52 +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: Olivier BEAUVILLAIN > > Correct? > Correct, Hearts are the denomination of 1NT ... 2D. > If South bid 4/6 H, North must pass one round either. AG : IBTD. Read the 'definitions' section : 'denomination : the suit or NT called in a bid'. Not the suit or NT shown by the bid. Else, what would the denomination on a Multi 2D be ? (or a strong 1C or 2C, by the way) Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 20:04:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SA4KF26142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:04:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SA4EH26138 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:04:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA08414 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:00:19 GMT Message-ID: <3B8B6BD0.767CDF1B@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:00:48 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise References: <01C12F5F.1DBE64A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001e01c12f9a$b73bc060$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> <009c01c12fa4$d4d2a080$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner a écrit : > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olivier BEAUVILLAIN > > > Correct? > > Correct, Hearts are the denomination of 1NT ... 2D. > > If South bid 4/6 H, North must pass one round either. > > AG : IBTD. Read the 'definitions' section : 'denomination : the suit or NT > called in a bid'. Not the suit or NT shown by the bid. Else, what would the > denomination on a Multi 2D be ? > (or a strong 1C or 2C, by the way) > in my book definitions, i read "specified" instead of your "called". not that the definition of denomination gives much sense to L29C, where is seen a distinction between denominations specified (= suits specified specified ?) and denominations named (= suits specified named?). where is the logic? jp rocafort > 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 21:21:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SBKi526190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:20:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SBKbH26186 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:20:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.57.181] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15bgrH-0006G7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:16:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c12fb2$d7f31200$b5397ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C12F5F.1DBE64A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <001e01c12f9a$b73bc060$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> <009c01c12fa4$d4d2a080$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <3B8B6BD0.767CDF1B@meteo.fr> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:16:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean-Pierre wrote: > AG : IBTD. Read the 'definitions' section : 'denomination : the suit or NT > called in a bid'. Not the suit or NT shown by the bid. Else, what would the > denomination on a Multi 2D be ? > (or a strong 1C or 2C, by the way) >in my book definitions, i read "specified" instead of your "called". That is the English wording. It does not help very much in determining whether a 2D bid that shows hearts has a "denomination" of diamonds or hearts. The definition of a "bid" is that it is "an undertaking to win at least a specified number of odd tricks in a specified denomination"; but of course a bid of 2D to show hearts is no such undertaking. Superficially, from the definitions section alone, one would deduce that a bid of 2D "specified" diamonds. But then we have L29C: If a call out of rotation is conventional, the provisions of Law 30, Law 31, and Law 32 shall apply to the denominations specified, rather than the denominations named. which, if it means anything at all, indicates that the denomination "specified" in a 2D bid that shows hearts is hearts, whereas the denomination "named" is diamonds. >not that the definition of denomination gives much sense to L29C, where >is seen a distinction between denominations specified (= suits specified >specified ?) and denominations named (= suits specified named?). where >is the logic? Oh, the logic is apparent enough - only the words obscure it completely. If a man bids hearts out of turn, he will silence his partner for one round by bidding hearts, forever by bidding not-hearts. So, if he bids diamonds to show hearts out of turn, we want him to be in the same position - that is, of silencing partner for one round by bidding hearts, forever by bidding not-hearts. This is equitable enough, though (as usual) an attempt to be equitable has led to chaos and confusion, where it would be a great deal simpler if any call out of rotation barred partner for the same period of time (for one round or forever). The question of a Multi is an interesting one: what are the "denominations specified" in a 2D opening that shows hearts, or spades, or a strong balanced hand? Indeed, there is a popular Multi variant that shows a weak 2M, or a strong 2m, or a strong balanced hand. Does this bid "specify" every one of the five denominations? If so, is this a record? 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 Aug 28 21:27:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SBQcP26203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:26:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SBQVH26199 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA10413; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:22:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 28 13:20:55 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 <01K7O37EEI0E001CVI@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:22:02 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:22:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:21:59 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" , Olivier BEAUVILLAIN , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B92F@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 > > > Correct? > > Correct, Hearts are the denomination of 1NT ... 2D. > > If South bid 4/6 H, North must pass one round either. > > AG : IBTD. Read the 'definitions' section : 'denomination : > the suit or NT > called in a bid'. Not the suit or NT shown by the bid. Else, > what would the > denomination on a Multi 2D be ? > (or a strong 1C or 2C, by the way) Reading the definitions is a wonderful idea, but reading the laws themselves more thoroughly is even better. May I suggest L 29C? So Fearghal is right. And even the definition does allow this, what does 'specified' mean? To be honest: my first choice goes to the interpretation as given in 29C. And yes you are right, it is not possible to tell what denomination is specified when one opens 2D multi. But does that proof your opinion? It gives us an interesting question: what to do if somebody BOOTs 2D multi and later bids hearts. Does he then repeat the denomination specified? Certainly not in relation to 26A (discussed before) so 26B applies. In my opinion neither in relation to 29C and 31. So partner has to pass throughout. This is all stuff for the EBL TD-course to start in a couple of days. Alain, are you coming? Fearghal is. ton > > 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 Tue Aug 28 21:35:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SBZWj26215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:35:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SBZPH26211 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:35:26 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA13075; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:31:36 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 28 13:29:51 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 <01K7O3J3N4EM001CVR@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:31:28 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:31:39 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:31:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise To: "'Jean Pierre Rocafort'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B930@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 > > > > AG : IBTD. Read the 'definitions' section : 'denomination : > the suit or NT > > called in a bid'. Not the suit or NT shown by the bid. > Else, what would the > > denomination on a Multi 2D be ? > > (or a strong 1C or 2C, by the way) > > > in my book definitions, i read "specified" instead of your "called". > not that the definition of denomination gives much sense to > L29C, where > is seen a distinction between denominations specified (= > suits specified > specified ?) and denominations named (= suits specified named?). where > is the logic? > The logic is in the history and complexity of our sport. Yes we should change the definition. But what do you expect if the big brains himself probably never has used anything else than natural calls. I remember him telling me that in the auction 1C -1S - X (by Kaplan) he himself proudly alerted his double and told his opponents that this was meant to be a penalty double (in the nineties, OK: previous century). ton > jp rocafort > > > > 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/ > > > -- > > > ___________________________________________________ > Jean-Pierre Rocafort > METEO-FRANCE > DSI/SC/D > 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis > 31057 Toulouse CEDEX > Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) > Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) > e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr > > Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr > ___________________________________________________ > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 21:51:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SBpjf26232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:51:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SBpcH26228 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:51:39 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA18466; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:47:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Aug 28 13:46:03 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 <01K7O442C172001CWZ@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:47:35 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:47:46 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:47:25 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise To: "'David Burn'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B931@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 question of a Multi is an interesting one: what are the > "denominations specified" in a 2D opening that shows hearts, > or spades, > or a strong balanced hand? Indeed, there is a popular Multi > variant that > shows a weak 2M, or a strong 2m, or a strong balanced hand. Does this > bid "specify" every one of the five denominations? If so, is this a > record? > > David Burn > London, England I don't have any doubt. Do you believe that somewhere in this bridge world they invented the 6th denomination (apart from our Christmas drives, being played the whole year round of course). So it is even better, it will stay as a record forever, at most equalized (my own language suggests that 'equated' should be used here?). But I have played it with even 2M strong added to the others, and since strong spades are not the same as weak spades it is possible to add up to seven, my record then. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 22:44:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SCiLB00987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:44:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SCiFH00983 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:44:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18863 invoked by uid 50005); 28 Aug 2001 12:41:04 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpe with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4151. . Clean. Processed in 2.920436 secs); 28 Aug 2001 12:41:04 -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 ; 28 Aug 2001 12:40:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 4802 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 12:40:14 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 28 Aug 2001 12:40:14 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:40:21 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B931@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B931@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:47:25 +0200, Ton Kooijman wrote: > But I have played it with even 2M strong >added to the others, and since strong spades are not the same as weak spades >it is possible to add up to seven, my record then. > Sorry, ton, but in that case I can manage eight in an Acol-based system I currently play with a partner on OKBridge. 2D is a weak 2M (that's two) or a strong 2m (that's four) or a 19+ HCP Roman 2D (presumably another four, by symmetry, so that's eight). Any advance on eight? ;-) 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 Aug 28 23:04:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SD46I01006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:04:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SD40H01001 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:04:01 +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 15biTR-000Hoy-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:00:10 +0100 Message-ID: <95GufaCPk3i7Ewwj@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:57:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EE@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> In-Reply-To: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EE@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot writes >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>You learn something new everyday! >> >> >>N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. >> >>North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds >(Transfer). >>The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. >>East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). >> >>If East bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >>If East bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. >> >>Correct? > >You probably mean: >If SOUTH bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >If SOUTH bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. > >No, just the other way around. If South bids 2D (or any other diamond bid), >North must pass once. If South bids anything else, North must pass >throughout. Try L29C. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Aug 28 23:04:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SD4FI01010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:04:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SD42H01003 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:04:03 +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 15biTR-000Hoz-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:00:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:14:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game 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 > >Does the game of Bridge exist, other than what is >circumscribed by the current Laws? Sure. There are lots of things, like personal ethics, different treatment of people with disabilities, and so on that are not in the Laws nor regulations, but are part of the spirit of the game. >In the latest issue of the Australian Directors' >Bulletin, there was a report on (as yet unratified) >recommendations of the Zone 7 Laws Commission. Two >Law changes they recommended in The Spirit of The >Game were: > >[big snip] > >>2. Any player (except dummy) may draw attention >>to an irregularity after it has occurred. Dummy >>may only draw attention to an irregularity that has >>occurred after play of the hand has concluded. >> >>Adopting this simple approach would allow most of >>Laws 9A, 42B and 61B to be deleted. I do not think the approach is at all simple. Simple to write, perhaps, but with complex conclusions, and not necessarily desirable ones. > >[big snip] > >>10. Law 65B. There was discussion about New >>Zealand's regulation that permits dummy or defender >>to stop partner from pointing a trick the wrong >>way. All were agreed that it should be in the >>spirit of the game to allow this to happen, but >>only at the time the player attempts to commit the >>infraction, certainly not after any player has >>played to the next trick. Nevertheless, there was >>concern that this regulation could be in conflict >>with the Laws as they are currently written and at >>the next revision, the committee would like the >>Law changed to reflect this. I too would like players to be allowed to do so until their side plays to the next trick - but it does need a Law change. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 00:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SE9Dp01056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:09:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SE98H01052 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:09:08 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:05:50 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:05:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Martin Sinot writes >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >>>You learn something new everyday! >>> >>> >>>N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. >>> >>>North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds >>(Transfer). >>>The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. >>>East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). >>> >>>If East bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >>>If East bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. >>> >>>Correct? >> >>You probably mean: >>If SOUTH bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >>If SOUTH bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. >> >>No, just the other way around. If South bids 2D (or any other diamond bid), >>North must pass once. If South bids anything else, North must pass >>throughout. > > Try L29C. Yup, as others already pointed out, L29C tells us that L31 should be applied to hearts in this case. But what do we do as the bid out of turn happens to refer to NO suit? For example, North is dealer, but East opens 1C (strong club). North does not accept, and decides to bid 1S. Now what? -- 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 Aug 29 01:31:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SFUYM01093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:30:34 +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 f7SFUSH01089 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:30:29 +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 RAA17575; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:23:13 +0200 (MEST) 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 RAA06938; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:26:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <003201c12fd6$5f8bf880$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Burn'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B931@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:30:30 +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 But I have played it with even 2M strong > added to the others, and since strong spades are not the same as weak spades > it is possible to add up to seven, my record then. AG : at some world championship in the late 80s, Munir-Fazli played 'paki preempts' which were multi-like 2-bids. The 2C opening had 7 different meanings, the 2D opening 8. New record. I think there is somethink to be said for giving the TD some leeway in appreciating the suit that had been 'specified'. Say someone opens OOT with 2D (weak with hearts, or any Acol 2-bid type). After disallowing the bid, the opponent opens, and the offending player passes. Surely, holding the Acol type, he would have gambled with a game bid. The Heart suit has then been specified by his pass. Hearts are the suit that may be either compelled or disallowed if partner is on lead. If bridge logic specifies one suit thereafter, treat as if that suit had been specified. This can't, however, apply to the classical Multi, though I would appreciate that the options offered to the NOS were to allow/disallow a spade or heart lead. To enforce a club lead would be quite illogical : the suit was never as much as suggested in the bidding. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 01:33:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SFXYD01108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:33:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SFXSH01104 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:33:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:46:38 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D17@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:46:31 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 8/28/01 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise David Stevenson wrote: >Martin Sinot writes >>Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >>>You learn something new everyday! >>> >>> >>>N/S do not play 'Transfers' when the opponents interfere. >>> >>>North opens 1NT, and before East calls South responds 2 Diamonds >>(Transfer). >>>The TD is called and West does not wish to accept the 2 Diamond bid. >>>East bids 2 Clubs (Natural). >>> >>>If East bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >>>If East bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. >>> >>>Correct? >> >>You probably mean: >>If SOUTH bids 2 Diamonds (Natural), North must Pass throughout. >>If SOUTH bids 2 Hearts (Natural), North must Pass for 1 Round. >> >>No, just the other way around. If South bids 2D (or any other diamond bid), >>North must pass once. If South bids anything else, North must pass >>throughout. > > Try L29C. Yup, as others already pointed out, L29C tells us that L31 should be applied to hearts in this case. But what do we do as the bid out of turn happens to refer to NO suit? For example, North is dealer, but East opens 1C (strong club). North does not accept, and decides to bid 1S. Now what? -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== Unless East can find a bid that refers to NO denomination over 1S West is barred for the rest of the auction. (I like denomination here better than suit, since NT is not a suit but it is a denomination). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 01:37:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SFb2c01120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:37:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SFavH01116 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:50:09 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D18@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: David Stevenson To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:50:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: David Stevenson To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 8/25/01 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Peter Gill writes >I disagree about what Law 45B says. To quote Law 45B: > >"Play of Card from Dummy >Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after >which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table..." > >i.e. "dummy picks up the card" AFTER "declarer plays >a card". An action which comes AFTER another action is >not part of the latter. This makes the ruling much less clear >than Hirsch indicates - I have a lot of sympathy for NS, >and I think the Laws may well be on NS's side, especially >Law 46A which Hirsch mentions in another section of his >post (which I have snipped). I am not sure about this interpretation. To change gear on a car, you Depress the clutch AFTER depressing the clutch you move the gear lever. I do not believe that you have changed gear once you have depressed the clutch. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ =============-- Perhaps the better analogy is that to change the gear you depress the clutch, then move the lever, then release the clutch. When you move the lever you have changed the gear. Pressing and releasing the clutch are advisable, but not actually necessary. And it is moving the lever that changes the gear. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 01:53:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SFreZ01137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:53:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SFrYH01133 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA19032; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:46:19 +0200 (MEST) 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 RAA17983; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:49:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <003d01c12fd9$99d275c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Martin Sinot" , References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:53:37 +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 ----- > But what do we do as the bid out of turn happens to refer to NO suit? > For example, North is dealer, but East opens 1C (strong club). North > does not accept, and decides to bid 1S. Now what? AG : now, we apply L26B. This law may be paraphrased by stating that an artificial bid which doesn't specify its suit(s) is treated as a bid in all four suits. As I wrote before, perhaps a bad idea in the case of a Multi or Two-way opening. Now let's make things clear. North opens OOT with 1C (showing 4+ spades, Vernian). West, the genuine opener, disallows, and bids 1H. If West bids 1S (or any number of spades, by the way), the spade suit is treated as specified for L26 purposes. If West bids 2C, this is treated as a 'new suit', and the spade suit is subject to L26 penalties. If, in the same system, the opening bid was 1D (denying as much as 4 cards in any major), the bid is related to majors. This would be logical, because the bid dissuaded partner from trying an opening lead in a major. Thus, the NOS must have the right to enforce such a lead. This shows that a suit may be 'related' to a bid negatively. Since ther 1D bid doesn't say anything about C or D (the opener may be void in a minor, or have 7+ cards therein), the NOS doesn't have the right to enforce a lead in a specified minor. Any objections ? Please note that the rules are not the same as in L27Ba1, whose conditions are more restrictive. To correct an insufficient bid of 1C (spades) into a sufficient bid of spades wouldn't help you escape the penalty. 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 Aug 29 02:24:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SGNmD01160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:23:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe69.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.204]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SGNgH01156 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:23:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:19:49 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.167.190] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:09:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Aug 2001 16:19:49.0436 (UTC) FILETIME=[429407C0:01C12FDD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game | To me, The Spirit of The | Game is Law 73A1. | | Best wishes | | Richard Refreshing! But would it be more precise to say the spirit of the game encompassed what players do given the premise of what is contained in L73A1? 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 Aug 29 02:24:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SGOVh01179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:24:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SGOPH01175 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:24:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA05462 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:20:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA01653 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:20:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108281620.MAA01653@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Reading the definitions is a wonderful idea, but reading the laws themselves > more thoroughly is even better. May I suggest L 29C? Yes, that is certainly clear enough! > And even the definition does allow this, what does 'specified' mean? To be > honest: my first choice goes to the interpretation as given in 29C. Before I saw your message and checked 29C, I thought it could well go either way, but my inclination would have been to treat 'specified' in the definition as equivalent to 'named'. This proves nothing more than how hard it is to write unambiguous laws. > you are right, it is not possible to tell what denomination is specified > when one opens 2D multi. But does that proof your opinion? It gives us an > interesting question: what to do if somebody BOOTs 2D multi and later bids > hearts. Does he then repeat the denomination specified? Here I don't think it is clear at all. > Certainly not in > relation to 26A (discussed before) so 26B applies. If the multi variant shows _only_ weak 2M, then hearts and spades are specified. I would have thought that if the player later bids one of them, L26A1 would apply (because the other suit "becomes unspecified"), but I see how Ton reaches his conclusion. This proves nothing more than the need to clear up (and preferably simplify) L26. Do we agree that in "only 2M" case, if the bidder does not bid a major in the legal auction, L26A2 applies to both hearts and spades but not to diamonds or clubs? > In my opinion neither in > relation to 29C and 31. So partner has to pass throughout. I tend to agree here, but I think it might be possible to argue the other way. I do not envy the drafting committee! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 02:41:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SGfL401199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:41:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SGfFH01195 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 02:41:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA00617 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA01957 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:37:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200108281637.MAA01957@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Bulletin, there was a report on (as yet unratified) > recommendations of the Zone 7 Laws Commission. Two > Law changes they recommended in The Spirit of The > Game were: > > >2. Any player (except dummy) may draw attention > >to an irregularity after it has occurred. Dummy > >may only draw attention to an irregularity that has > >occurred after play of the hand has concluded. The 'only' is misplaced. It should come immediately before 'after'. Also, 'that has occurred' is better omitted. This is another demonstration of the difficulty of unambiguous writing. > >10. Law 65B. There was discussion about New > >Zealand's regulation that permits dummy or defender > >to stop partner from pointing a trick the wrong > >way. All were agreed that it should be in the > >spirit of the game to allow this to happen, but > >only at the time the player attempts to commit the > >infraction, certainly not after any player has > >played to the next trick. "Any player" is too restrictive. An opponent may act with haste, denying the player a fair chance to correct. If a specific event is needed, it should be when partner acts, or there could be words related to elapsed time rather than a subsequent event. For example, we have "without pause for thought" in other laws. "Without delay" might do here, although it would need an interpretation. What is wanted, I think, is something like "before the next player would act if he acts in normal tempo," but that is cumbersome. Again we see the drafting problem, although here it is practical rather than grammatical. > Alas, I must disagree. To me, The Spirit of The > Game is Law 73A1. This is certainly a question on which reasonable people can and do disagree. My vote is with the laws commission, FWIW. Simple mechanical irregularities should be corrected when it can be done without harm, or at least there should be a reasonable but short opportunity for players to correct them. L25A and 45C4b are examples in the present code. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 04:00:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SHwN401296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:58:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SHwGH01291 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:58:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.74.30] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15bn48-0006H3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:54:21 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c12fea$640e5c40$1e4a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200108281637.MAA01957@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:53:46 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > >2. Any player (except dummy) may draw attention > > >to an irregularity after it has occurred. Dummy > > >may only draw attention to an irregularity that has > > >occurred after play of the hand has concluded. > > The 'only' is misplaced. It should come immediately before 'after'. > Also, 'that has occurred' is better omitted. This is another > demonstration of the difficulty of unambiguous writing. Quite so. Whereas there might be irregularities that occur after play of the hand has concluded, they are few and far between, and in any case after play of the hand has concluded, there is no longer a dummy. What is (presumably) meant is: Until play of the hand has concluded, dummy may not draw attention to an irregularity that has occurred. After play has concluded, any of the four players may draw attention to an irregularity that occurred during the play. This sort of thing is why, as I have mentioned, you need a patent lawyer to proof-read the Laws. > > Alas, I must disagree. To me, The Spirit of The > > Game is Law 73A1. To me, the Spirit of the Game is a myth that distracts people from playing by the rules. But then, you already knew that. 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 Aug 29 04:24:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SIMpR01323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:22:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SIMjH01319 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:22:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.5/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f7SIHjg04280 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D18@al194.minfod.com> References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D18@al194.minfod.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:18:02 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Case for AC Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Pressing and releasing the clutch are >advisable, but not actually necessary. And it is moving the lever that >changes the gear. I suppose not - if the next thing you want to change is your transmission. 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/AwUBO4vgjr2UW3au93vOEQJ30gCePD4D0xDf3oeU9lDQ4IvkSWkcZKIAnRPC UZVpL0BlYMgpb5FsgFO1gbex =x1a8 -----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 Aug 29 04:49:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SInfC04332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:49:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SInYH04309 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:49:35 +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 15bnrr-000AIy-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:45:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:08:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> In-Reply-To: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> Try L29C. >Yup, as others already pointed out, L29C tells us that L31 should >be applied to hearts in this case. > >But what do we do as the bid out of turn happens to refer to NO suit? >For example, North is dealer, but East opens 1C (strong club). North >does not accept, and decides to bid 1S. Now what? Ask Ton and Grattan in Tabiano!!!!!! Where's my notebook? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 05:23:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SJMQd05614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 05:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SJMLH05610 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 05:22:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.5/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f7SJHOJ18610 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:17:24 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5uvQLxOF$mh7EwY0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <9lnto6$v05$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <9lod3q$79p$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <3B7FCA4C.DEB825A4@nospam.netscape.net> <5uvQLxOF$mh7EwY0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:17:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: The amazing conclusion to "Checkmated answering opponent's question?" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:16 PM +0100 8/24/01, David Stevenson wrote: > In my view choosing amongst LAs includes the action taken which you >believe to be an LA and is therefore illegal given the conditions. Hm. If I believe there is no LA, and thus choose what I believe to be the *only* logical action, it seems possible that a TD might rule that there *was* in fact an LA, and that therefore I have committed an infraction. This seems a catch-22. I don't like catch-22's. :-( 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/AwUBO4vuh72UW3au93vOEQKuhgCfXq3sUEOqZOEhsFuGMsY/e8xVJfwAoPDy wkuiTI88gq79Oo+NA25S4dzw =tept -----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 Aug 29 07:31:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SLUkw15661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:30:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SLUeH15637 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-020.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.212]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA71710 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:26:43 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:27:09 +0100 Message-ID: <01C13010.9337C440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:27:07 +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 came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came across it years ago. Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' and probably still do. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 08:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SM4hm24735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:04:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SM4bH24719 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7SLwoN09776 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:58:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108282158.f7SLwoN09776@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:58:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <01C13010.9337C440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> from "Fearghal O'Boyle" at Aug 28, 2001 10:27:07 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:27:07 +0100 > > I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came across it years ago. > > Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. > Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > > I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' and probably still do. > Well, they aren't wiser if they say "no." It's explicitly in the laws L41.C that you can ask and deserve an answer: ========== C. Opening Lead Faced Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins, and dummy's hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B, above), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. ========== You can't ask if LHO or RHO doubled, but you are entitled to know if you are playing a doubled contract. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 08:13:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SMDJm25878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:13:19 +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 f7SMDEH25874 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:13:14 +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 PAA00990; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:09:21 -0700 Message-Id: <200108282209.PAA00990@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:27:07 BST." <01C13010.9337C440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 15:09:21 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came > across it years ago. > > Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. > Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > > I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said > 'no' and probably still do. Hmmm . . . it seems you're asking, what does the word "and" mean in the second sentence of 41C? Does it mean that there are two separate pieces of information of which the player is entitled to be informed, or does it mean that the player is entitled to ask about the contract AND whether it was doubled as one whole "packet" of information, but not separately? Is this sort of what you're getting at? Or have I missed the point entirely? I think the correct answer here is, "Don't be silly. This is declarer we're talking about, and we don't care about him giving unauthorized information to dummy, so why are we going to pick nits about how he phrases his questions???" Now if the question was about a *defender* . . . well, I don't know the answer. -- 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 Aug 29 08:16:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SMFxu25899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:15:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SMFrH25895 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:15:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-41-119.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.41.119] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15br5W-000GII-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:12:02 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c1300e$cb54eb20$77297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200108271901.PAA21609@cfa183.harvard.edu> <010601c12f38$e78f8060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:13:08 +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: Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors > > > > I have said before that I don't think the laws > > have a consistent position as regards > > partnership understandings. > > Not well-defined, anyway. What inferences > regarding partner's bidding can be said to > have been derived from "general knowledge and > experience" (L75C), which varies geographically? > +=+ I do not think the law is ill-defined; it is the way the law is used that varies. +=+ > > I think ZAs should provide a generic document > defining what is "general knowledge." > +=+ In a Zone like Zone 1 with 40 plus NBOs and many facets of the game varying amongst them, pan-Zonal general knowledge and experience would be hard to come by. Our intra-Zonal international regulations have to overcome the absence of Zonal criteria that apply universally within the domestic tournaments of the Zone 1 NBOs. That is to say there are some that do but many do not. Some American colleagues have said to me that similar situations exist in the USA between East and West Coast players. Is this so?+=+ > > I have continual difficulty with our unAlerted > double jump in a new suit in response to a > one-of-a-suit natural opening. General > knowledge is that this is a preemptive bid, > showing a good long suit and a very weak hand. > Per L75C that inference need not be disclosed, > and yet TDs hereabouts insist that it must be > explained to our ignorant life master opponents. > +=+ Maybe Directors think that (?some) life masters have a different general knowledge and experience, as for example that such bids are expected to be cues? Do the alerting regs say anything about strength of natural jumps? ~ 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 Aug 29 08:22:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SMM8U25915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:22:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SMM3H25911 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:22:03 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:35:14 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "''bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 17:35:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Fearghal O'Boyle I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came across it years ago. Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' and probably still do. Best regards, Fearghal. ----------- 41C. Opening Lead Faced Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period begins, and dummy's hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous calls restated (see B, above), declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. Looks like "yes" to me! Perhaps he should ask "What is the contract?" instead of "Is the contract doubled?", but that seems to be splitting hairs. John Nichols -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 08:24:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SMOFx25928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:24:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SMO9H25924 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:24:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7SMKKb12367 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:20:20 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:19:23 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query In-Reply-To: <01C13010.9337C440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. > Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > > I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' and probably still do. The passage, for those without their law books to hand, is "Declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informaed as to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled." I find very little room for interpretation: "is entitled to be informed" seems painfully clear he must be told. Perhaps you can fill us in on the controversy? Was the law worded differently in the past? Or is it just the 'incomplete review question' in a new guise - trying to make him ask "what is the contract?" instead of JUST "am I doubled?" If the latter, I think 41C says both questions, alone or in combination, are fair game. Here is another question along the same lines which I am less confident of the answer: My opponent is playing (say) 3H doubled. He asks what the contract is. [Contract: the undertaking by declarer's side to win, at the denomination named, the number of odd tricks specified in the final bid, whether undoubled, doubled, or redoubled.] Am I allowed to say simply "Three hearts," knowing perfectly well it is doubled, but not volunteering information I wasn't asked for? To do so would, obviously, be incredibly rude, and I've not ever (intentionally anyway) done so. But, in most situations (e.g., volunteering explanations of alerted calls if not asked) we are specifically instructed to reveal nothing unless we are asked to. It's the old "is illegal the same thing as unethical?" debate all over 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 Wed Aug 29 08:57:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SMuj525949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:56:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.de (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SMudH25945 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:56:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15briz-0006I3-01; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:52:49 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.165.78]) by fwd00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15brio-1WYtkmC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:52:38 +0200 Message-ID: <3B8C2166.9DAB9D85@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:55:35 +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] Law 41C Grammar Query References: <01C13010.9337C440.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: > I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came across it years ago. > > Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. > Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > > I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' and probably still do. > > Best regards, > Fearghal. Assuming that we are a couple of tricks into the hand ( else 41B), the lawbook gives us: ....declarer or either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and wether, but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. This looks pretty clear to me. Of course, if your point is that the question should be "what is the contract" and that a pointed question like the one you used in your post may be used to wake up partner to the fact that it's cash-out time( or give another unauthorized information), I suppose that could be the case. Use of such illegal ploys should be limited though, since it has to be your turn to play, not partner's (yes, I can construct situations for this.Takes some criminal energy). So the answer to your question should be: He is entitled to find out wether he plays his contract doubled or not. As declarer he can't generate UI, and I hope nobody is going to plead "willful intimidation" or some such (I hope I got the translation right, but I think you know what I mean). 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 Wed Aug 29 09:37:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SNav225986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:36:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7SNapH25982 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:36:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-45-9.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.45.9] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15bsLs-000Ado-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:33:01 +0100 Message-ID: <003401c1301a$1af48540$77297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:32:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise > > > >But what do we do as the bid out of > >turn happens to refer to NO suit? > >For example, North is dealer, but > >East opens 1C (strong club).North > >does not accept, and decides to > >bid 1S. Now what? > > Ask Ton and Grattan in Tabiano!!!!!! > +=+ Did someone intone my name? Let us look at the laws. It is easiest if we begin by looking at 29C. This tells us that in the case of a conventional bid the provisions of Law 31 apply to the denom specified, not the denom named. Now go to Law 31, offender has called at RHO's turn, LHO has not opted to accept the bid out of rotation, and RHO has chosen to bid. Now we learn from Laws 29B and 31 that offender may make any legal call. So far no problem. Law 31 next says that when this bid repeats the denom 31A2(a) applies; does it apply here? No it does not, offender has not repeated any denomination. So how about 31A2(b)? Offender has not repeated the denomination of his bid out of turn - he could not repeat a denom that did not exist. Plainly the situation is exactly fitting to the wording of 31A2(b) when its words are read with scrupulous care for what they say. A lead penalty if applied would be that in Law 26B; Law23 would allow Director discretion to determine whether the offender could have known that his partner's enforced pass "would be likely ...etc", and for good measure the information that offender has a hand strong enough to open 1C would be UI for his partner (16C2). In my opinion. ~ 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 Aug 29 09:58:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7SNvuB26012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:57:56 +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 (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7SNvoH26008 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:57:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-006.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.198]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA02488 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:53:56 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:54:20 +0100 Message-ID: <01C13025.23523D80.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:54:19 +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 Adam wrote: Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came > across it years ago. > > Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. > Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > > I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said > 'no' and probably still do. Hmmm . . . it seems you're asking, what does the word "and" mean in the second sentence of 41C? Does it mean that there are two separate pieces of information of which the player is entitled to be informed, or does it mean that the player is entitled to ask about the contract AND whether it was doubled as one whole "packet" of information, but not separately? Is this sort of what you're getting at? Or have I missed the point entirely? Yes Adam you have grasped the problem. The 'no' group argued that the word 'AND' was significant, so that declarer would have to ask "What is the contract and is it doubled?" for the question to be permissible. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 10:32:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T0W9f29022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:32:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from deakin.edu.au (root@hestia.its.deakin.edu.au [128.184.136.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7T0W4H29006 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from saruman.deakin.edu.au (saruman.cm.deakin.edu.au [128.184.80.138]) by deakin.edu.au (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7T0Rtp20525; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:27:55 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> X-Sender: doug@mail-g.deakin.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:27:54 +1000 To: John Nichols , "''bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' '" From: Douglas Newlands Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query In-Reply-To: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:35 28/08/2001 -0500, John Nichols wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Fearghal O'Boyle > >I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came across >it years ago. > >Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. >Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > >I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' >and probably still do. > >----------- > >41C. Opening Lead Faced >Following this question period, the opening lead is faced, the play period >begins, and dummy's hand is spread. After it is too late to have previous >calls restated (see B, above), declarer or either defender, at his own turn >to play, is entitled to be informed as to what the contract is and whether, >but not by whom, it was doubled or redoubled. > > >Looks like "yes" to me! >Perhaps he should ask "What is the contract?" instead of "Is the contract >doubled?", but that seems to be splitting hairs. In Australia, where written bidding is the norm, I think 99.9% of players just leave the bidding pad permanently in the centre of the table so the record of the auction is permanently available. Unless one is playing against VM from Melbourne (i.e. Mollo has not made a second coming), nobody cares. Curiously, when VM turns over the bidding pad, I think he causes mild annoyance in some persons even though he usually does it at the appropriate time - I wonder if he has ever had the director called because of the unusualness of his behaviour. When I first arrived in Oz, I used to fret about this but my observations lead me to believe that those who would forget the auction are just as likely to forget to look at the pad anyway. Is any rule, in anyone''s opinion, broken by leaving the pad on the table since it, inter alia, tells you by whom the contract was doubled. Douglas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 11:47:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T1jK907026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:45:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7T1jEH06998 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:45:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010829014119.QQIL8562.femail21.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b>; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:41:19 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010828214007.007e2210@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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 21:40:07 -0400 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: The amazing conclusion to "Checkmated answering opponent's question?" In-Reply-To: References: <5uvQLxOF$mh7EwY0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <9lnto6$v05$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <9lod3q$79p$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <3B7FCA4C.DEB825A4@nospam.netscape.net> <5uvQLxOF$mh7EwY0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:17 PM 8/28/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >David Stevenson writes: >> In my view choosing amongst LAs includes the action taken which you >>believe to be an LA and is therefore illegal given the conditions. > >Hm. If I believe there is no LA, and thus choose what I believe to be >the *only* logical action, it seems possible that a TD might rule >that there *was* in fact an LA, and that therefore I have committed >an infraction. This seems a catch-22. I don't like catch-22's. :-( A catch-22 is not possible, because the UI cannot demonstrably suggest eath of two calls over the other, whether they are LA's or not. If you have UI which suggests bidding 4H over passing, then it is an infraction to bid 4H if pass is an LA, whether or not 4H is an LA. It is not an infraction to pass, even if the TD judges later that pass was not an LA to 4H. (If your jurisdiction uses a 75% rule, for example, then it is not an infraction to pass even if only 10% of players would pass, even though it is also not an infraction to bid 4H.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 12:14:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T2D4c12916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:13:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7T2CwH12901 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:12:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.10.141] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15bumx-0004kt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:09:08 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c1302f$80bc3a20$8d0a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 03:07:51 +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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon wrote: > > Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. > > Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" > > > > I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said 'no' and probably still do. > > The passage, for those without their law books to hand, is "Declarer or > either defender, at his own turn to play, is entitled to be informaed as > to what the contract is and whether, but not by whom, it was doubled or > redoubled." > > I find very little room for interpretation: "is entitled to be > informed" seems painfully clear he must be told. Don't you believe it. By whom must he be told? Not by dummy, for to do so would participate in the play. After all, if dummy is not allowed to tell declarer that he has to follow suit from dummy, then surely dummy is not allowed to tell declarer in what suit he is playing the hand. Not by either defender, for to do so would constitute illegal communication between partners. After all, the other defender might not know what trumps are either, and the defender who does know must not communicate this information by any means. Not by a kibitzer, for to do so would be bound to break Law 78 in one way or another. The painful truth of the matter is that it is up to declarer to remember what the contract is. Now, I am well aware that the Laws of bridge have been carefully constructed in such a fashion that declarers who cannot remember what the contract is, whether or not it has been doubled, and if so, by whom, should be looked after in the same fashion as others suffering from short-term memory loss, for this is the caring society. Insofar as the Laws of bridge attempt to protect idiots from themselves, they are futile. The only reason why the Laws of bridge attempt to protect idiots from themselves is, in a phrase that has gained recent currency, "the Spirit of the Game". The sooner this is towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire, the better. 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 Aug 29 16:51:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T6ocA19662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:50:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7T6oUH19626 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:50:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-43-118.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.43.118] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15bz7W-000Pkg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c13056$aeea5cc0$762b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <002101c1302f$80bc3a20$8d0a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:45:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 3:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query > The only reason why the Laws of bridge attempt > to protect idiots from themselves is, in a phrase > that has gained recent currency, "the Spirit of > the Game". The sooner this is towed out to sea > and sunk by gunfire, the better. > +=+ But David, all this does is to change the spirit of the game from one that is 'generous' (to quote 'the authorities') to one that is ungenerous (as you recommend). That there will be a spirit in which the game is played is inevitable - as also probably the truth that it is likely to be somewhat different in the Much Muddling B.C. from what it is in the Y.C. And let it be said, I was being told about the 'spirit in which we play the game' by Geoffrey Fell and Geoffrey Butler fifty years ago. It is an old currency. Also, I have known one David Burn to be extremely softhearted on occasion, when we were younger, so I tend to think yours is another TIC contribution.. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 17:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T75Ye23306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:05:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7T75RH23290 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:05:28 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA21917; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:01:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Aug 29 08:59:48 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 <01K7P8EOM0T2001DTN@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:01:28 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:01:39 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:01:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B934@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 > > > > > > >But what do we do as the bid out of > > >turn happens to refer to NO suit? > > >For example, North is dealer, but > > >East opens 1C (strong club).North > > >does not accept, and decides to > > >bid 1S. Now what? > > > > Ask Ton and Grattan in Tabiano!!!!!! > > > > +=+ Did someone intone my name? > Let us look at the laws. It is easiest > if we begin by looking at 29C. This tells us > that in the case of a conventional bid the > provisions of Law 31 apply to the denom > specified, not the denom named. > Now go to Law 31, offender has called > at RHO's turn, LHO has not opted to accept > the bid out of rotation, and RHO has chosen > to bid. Now we learn from Laws 29B and 31 > that offender may make any legal call. So far > no problem. Law 31 next says that when > this bid repeats the denom 31A2(a) applies; > does it apply here? No it does not, offender > has not repeated any denomination. > So how about 31A2(b)? Offender has > not repeated the denomination of his bid > out of turn - he could not repeat a denom > that did not exist. Plainly the situation is > exactly fitting to the wording of 31A2(b) > when its words are read with scrupulous > care for what they say. A lead penalty if > applied would be that in Law 26B; Law23 > would allow Director discretion to determine > whether the offender could have known that > his partner's enforced pass "would be likely > ...etc", and for good measure the information > that offender has a hand strong enough to > open 1C would be UI for his partner (16C2). > In my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And in mine, thank you for this clear explanation. ton > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 17:31:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T7Uxx28708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:30:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7T7UrH28691 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-59-52.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.59.52] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15bzkb-0006rZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:27:02 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c1305c$5342dd60$762b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <002101c1302f$80bc3a20$8d0a7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:28:18 +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: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 3:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query > > Not by dummy, for to do so would participate > in the play. After all, if dummy is not allowed > to tell declarer that he has to follow suit from > dummy, then surely dummy is not allowed to > tell declarer in what suit he is playing the hand. > +=+ Except as authorized in 42A1+=+ > > Not by either defender, for to do so would > constitute illegal communication between > partners. After all, the other defender might > not know what trumps are either, and the > defender who does know must not communicate >this information by any means. > +=+ The Director might send one defender away > from the table+=+ > > Not by a kibitzer, for to do so would be bound > to break Law 78 in one way or another. > +=+Except as provided in 76B +=+ > > The painful truth > +=+ " ......and would not stay for an answer" ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 17:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T7vPh04167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:57:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7T7vKH04163 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:57:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id SAA16785 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:01:13 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:43:08 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:48:00 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 29/08/2001 05:46:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Douglas Newlands wrote: >In Australia, where written bidding is the norm, I >think 99.9% of players just leave the bidding pad >permanently in the centre of the table so the record >of the auction is permanently available. [snip] This Australian habit may be permitted by L80E, but seems to violate The Spirit of The Game* by being contrary to the intent of the lawmakers in their creation of L41B's limitations on review of the auction. Therefore, an Australian State has passed a regulation (in The Spirit of The Game*) that requires the bidding pad to be concealed at the conclusion of the first trick. Pedants will note that a bidding pad regulation does not fully parallel L41B unless the bidding pad is _progressively_ concealed from each player after they contribute a card to the first trick. Best wishes Richard *Off-the-topic comment. In one sense I agree with David Burn that the phrase The Spirit of The Game should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. _But_ there must be some sort of compass we follow when deciding the content of the next edition of the Laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 18:42:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T8g8205503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:42:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (c69101.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.69.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7T8g2H05487 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:42:02 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:38:43 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5F0@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:38:42 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott"Bibles laid open, millions of surprises" > ~ Sir A P Herbert. > + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:08 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise > > >> > >> >But what do we do as the bid out of >> >turn happens to refer to NO suit? >> >For example, North is dealer, but >> >East opens 1C (strong club).North >> >does not accept, and decides to >> >bid 1S. Now what? >> >> Ask Ton and Grattan in Tabiano!!!!!! >> > >+=+ Did someone intone my name? > Let us look at the laws. It is easiest >if we begin by looking at 29C. This tells us >that in the case of a conventional bid the >provisions of Law 31 apply to the denom >specified, not the denom named. > Now go to Law 31, offender has called >at RHO's turn, LHO has not opted to accept >the bid out of rotation, and RHO has chosen >to bid. Now we learn from Laws 29B and 31 >that offender may make any legal call. So far >no problem. Law 31 next says that when >this bid repeats the denom 31A2(a) applies; >does it apply here? No it does not, offender >has not repeated any denomination. > So how about 31A2(b)? Offender has >not repeated the denomination of his bid >out of turn - he could not repeat a denom >that did not exist. Plainly the situation is >exactly fitting to the wording of 31A2(b) >when its words are read with scrupulous >care for what they say. A lead penalty if >applied would be that in Law 26B; Law23 >would allow Director discretion to determine >whether the offender could have known that >his partner's enforced pass "would be likely >...etc", and for good measure the information >that offender has a hand strong enough to >open 1C would be UI for his partner (16C2). > In my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Well, thank you for this very clear and logical explanation. For the lawmakers: might I suggest to rephrase L31 in a way similar to L27 to express this explanation? It wouldn't change the rules, but it would certainly be more readable. -- 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 Aug 29 19:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T942N06469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:04:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7T93pH06456 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:03:52 +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 15c1CS-000B22-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:59:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:46:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query References: <01C13010.9337C440.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <200108282209.PAA00990@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200108282209.PAA00990@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 > >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >> I came across an old chestnut that puzzled me when I first came >> across it years ago. >> >> Declarer is in 3NT. It is his turn to play. >> Is he permitted to ask "Is the contract doubled?" >> >> I said 'yes' then and still think 'yes' but wiser men than I said >> 'no' and probably still do. > >Hmmm . . . it seems you're asking, what does the word "and" mean in the >second sentence of 41C? Does it mean that there are two separate >pieces of information of which the player is entitled to be informed, >or does it mean that the player is entitled to ask about the contract >AND whether it was doubled as one whole "packet" of information, but >not separately? Is this sort of what you're getting at? Or have I >missed the point entirely? > >I think the correct answer here is, "Don't be silly. This is declarer >we're talking about, and we don't care about him giving unauthorized >information to dummy, so why are we going to pick nits about how he >phrases his questions???" > >Now if the question was about a *defender* . . . well, I don't know >the answer. Since the Law is the same for declarer or a defender, then I suggest you worry about the Law for a defender, then deduce it for declarer. I do not really see why people have become so chary here of whether it matters what the Law is. While you may apply commonsense to your dealings with others, an *excellent* starting point is to know what is and is not legal, and then worry about how to apply it to others or to oneself. Gordon Bower writes >My opponent is playing (say) 3H doubled. He asks what the contract >is. [Contract: the undertaking by declarer's side to win, at the >denomination named, the number of odd tricks specified in the final bid, >whether undoubled, doubled, or redoubled.] Am I allowed to say simply >"Three hearts," knowing perfectly well it is doubled, but not volunteering >information I wasn't asked for? In my view you were asked for it. >To do so would, obviously, be incredibly rude, and I've not ever >(intentionally anyway) done so. But, in most situations (e.g., >volunteering explanations of alerted calls if not asked) we are >specifically instructed to reveal nothing unless we are asked to. It's the >old "is illegal the same thing as unethical?" debate all over again. In my view it is illegal and unethical. The contract is understood to include whether it is doubled. Now, it does not matter whether you can legally say the contract does not include whether it is doubled, but you know that is what the person is asking for thus you are deliberately misleading him. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 19:04:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T945L06471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:04:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7T93sH06460 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:03:55 +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 15c1CS-000B20-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:00:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:34:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: The amazing conclusion to "Checkmated answering opponent's question?" References: <9lnto6$v05$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <9lod3q$79p$1@netox20.alcatel.no> <3B7FCA4C.DEB825A4@nospam.netscape.net> <5uvQLxOF$mh7EwY0@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 4:16 PM +0100 8/24/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> In my view choosing amongst LAs includes the action taken which you >>believe to be an LA and is therefore illegal given the conditions. > >Hm. If I believe there is no LA, and thus choose what I believe to be >the *only* logical action, it seems possible that a TD might rule >that there *was* in fact an LA, and that therefore I have committed >an infraction. This seems a catch-22. I don't like catch-22's. :-( I don't think this argument stands up to the cold light, but ... Perhaps you could give an example? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 19:04:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7T944A06470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:04:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7T93rH06457 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:03:53 +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 15c1CS-000B21-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 09:00:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:45:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Douglas Newlands writes >In Australia, where written bidding is the norm, I think 99.9% of players >just leave the >bidding pad permanently in the centre of the table so the record of the >auction >is permanently available. Unless one is playing against VM from Melbourne >(i.e. Mollo >has not made a second coming), nobody cares. Curiously, when VM turns over >the bidding pad, I think he causes mild annoyance in some persons even though >he usually does it at the appropriate time - I wonder if he has ever had >the director >called because of the unusualness of his behaviour. When I first arrived in >Oz, I used >to fret about this but my observations lead me to believe that those who >would forget the >auction are just as likely to forget to look at the pad anyway. >Is any rule, in anyone''s opinion, broken by leaving the pad on the table >since it, inter >alia, tells you by whom the contract was doubled. Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it to be turned down after the first three cards are played. Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 21:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TBuKl15923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:56:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m08.mx.aol.com (imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TBuEH15919 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:56:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id 5.96.195c73fd (4237); Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:52:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <96.195c73fd.28be3162@aol.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 07:52:02 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL, cyaxares@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_96.195c73fd.28be3162_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_96.195c73fd.28be3162_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit May I join this august company with my total agreement? Kojak --part1_96.195c73fd.28be3162_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit May I join this august company with my total agreement?

Kojak --part1_96.195c73fd.28be3162_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 Aug 29 22:17:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TCH8518548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:17:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7TCH2H18534 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:17:02 +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 15c4DQ-000Lto-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:13:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:59:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query 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 >Douglas Newlands wrote: > >>In Australia, where written bidding is the norm, I >>think 99.9% of players just leave the bidding pad >>permanently in the centre of the table so the record >>of the auction is permanently available. > >[snip] > >This Australian habit may be permitted by L80E, but >seems to violate The Spirit of The Game* by being >contrary to the intent of the lawmakers in their >creation of L41B's limitations on review of the >auction. > >Therefore, an Australian State has passed a >regulation (in The Spirit of The Game*) that requires >the bidding pad to be concealed at the conclusion of >the first trick. The ABF has such a regulation. But I do not agree that it is necessary. If you use spoken bidding then you are allowed to ask for a review of the bidding when it is your turn to call. If you make the same inference from this as some Australians seem to make re the bidding pad then it is illegal for the bidding box cards to be left in a position where people can see them when it is not their turn to call. That is ludicrous, and so is the worry about letting the bidding pad remain visible. It is tiresome if players are always asking for reviews, and so they are limited by Law. That does not mean that there is any reason why a permanent record of the bidding should not remain visible. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Aug 29 23:44:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TDiDf29570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:44:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe34.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TDi7H29566 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:44:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 06:40:12 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.225] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <003401c1301a$1af48540$77297bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:31:31 -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: 29 Aug 2001 13:40:12.0667 (UTC) FILETIME=[20CACCB0:01C13090] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise | Grattan Endicott | To: | Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 5:08 PM | Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise | | | > > | > >But what do we do as the bid out of | > >turn happens to refer to NO suit? | > >For example, North is dealer, but | > >East opens 1C (strong club).North | > >does not accept, and decides to | > >bid 1S. Now what? | > | > Ask Ton and Grattan in Tabiano!!!!!! | > | | +=+ Did someone intone my name? | Let us look at the laws. It is easiest | if we begin by looking at 29C. This tells us | that in the case of a conventional bid the | provisions of Law 31 apply to the denom | specified, not the denom named. | Now go to Law 31, offender has called | at RHO's turn, LHO has not opted to accept | the bid out of rotation, and RHO has chosen | to bid. Now we learn from Laws 29B and 31 | that offender may make any legal call. So far | no problem. Law 31 next says that when | this bid repeats the denom 31A2(a) applies; | does it apply here? No it does not, offender | has not repeated any denomination. | So how about 31A2(b)? Offender has | not repeated the denomination of his bid | out of turn - he could not repeat a denom | that did not exist. Plainly the situation is | exactly fitting to the wording of 31A2(b) | when its words are read with scrupulous | care for what they say. A lead penalty if | applied would be that in Law 26B; Law23 | would allow Director discretion to determine | whether the offender could have known that | his partner's enforced pass "would be likely | ...etc", and for good measure the information | that offender has a hand strong enough to | open 1C would be UI for his partner (16C2). | In my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Surely there can be information contained within a call other than merely suits. And is it really a valid approach to apply the penalty for a COOT solely on the information about suit? I believe not. A COOT can be very potent. First it deprives an opponent of his rightful turn thereby upsetting the balance of information. And when the outcome entails a change of call even L25/L27 recognize the power of the information created within conventional actions. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 01:56:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TFthi29644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:55:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TFtbH29640 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:55:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28130; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:51:44 -0700 Message-Id: <200108291551.IAA28130@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2001 01:46:30 BST." Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:51:43 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >I think the correct answer here is, "Don't be silly. This is declarer > >we're talking about, and we don't care about him giving unauthorized > >information to dummy, so why are we going to pick nits about how he > >phrases his questions???" > > > >Now if the question was about a *defender* . . . well, I don't know > >the answer. > > Since the Law is the same for declarer or a defender, then I suggest > you worry about the Law for a defender, then deduce it for declarer. > > I do not really see why people have become so chary here of whether it > matters what the Law is. While you may apply commonsense to your > dealings with others, an *excellent* starting point is to know what is > and is not legal, and then worry about how to apply it to others or to > oneself. Uh oh, have I been taken seriously again? Drat. I really *must* get that smiley key on my keyboard fixed. . . . Seriously, I agree completely with you, but my comment was intended to be partly facetious. Sorry for any misunderstanding. -- 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 Aug 30 02:06:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TG6M729661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 02:06:22 +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 f7TG6EH29657 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 02:06:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-55-71.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.55.71] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15c7nJ-000GYy-00; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:02:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c130a3$f576f160$47377bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Nick Doe" Subject: [BLML] To Tabiano Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:56:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 02:21:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7TGG2V18761 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:16:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108291616.f7TGG2V18761@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:16:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> from "Douglas Newlands" at Aug 29, 2001 10:27:54 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:27:54 +1000 > From: Douglas Newlands > > In Australia, where written bidding is the norm, I think 99.9% of players > just leave the > bidding pad permanently in the centre of the table so the record of the > auction > is permanently available. Unless one is playing against VM from Melbourne > (i.e. Mollo > has not made a second coming), nobody cares. Curiously, when VM turns over > the bidding pad, I think he causes mild annoyance in some persons even though > he usually does it at the appropriate time - I wonder if he has ever had > the director > called because of the unusualness of his behaviour. When I first arrived in > Oz, I used > to fret about this but my observations lead me to believe that those who > would forget the > auction are just as likely to forget to look at the pad anyway. > Is any rule, in anyone''s opinion, broken by leaving the pad on the table > since it, inter > alia, tells you by whom the contract was doubled. > Well, as has been pointed out, L41.B does say that the players are only privileged to a review of the auction until they play a card to trick one. To the letter of the law, the pad should be turned down after the auction is complete (three passes in succession) and any player may consult the pad until they play to the first trick and after that, no one may consult the pad. I think that the club manager and the tournament officials should have the right to allow SOP with regards to the pad if they choose to go with something else (like leaving it up at all times). One possible "law" that could be considered broken by leaving the pad up is 40.E.2 the footnote which reads: ===== "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organizations may designate unusual methods and allow written defenses against opponents' unusual methods to be referred to at the table." ===== The full auction could be construed as an aid to memory for recalling what partner bid and what partner alerted, etc which could be considered an aid to memory or technique. I wouldn't use this argument, but someone else could and may. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 02:27:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TGRdh29692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 02:27:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TGRYH29688 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 02:27:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7TGLjg18873 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:21:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108291621.f7TGLjg18873@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:21:45 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 29, 2001 05:48:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:48:00 +1000 > > Pedants will note that a bidding pad regulation does > not fully parallel L41B unless the bidding pad is > _progressively_ concealed from each player after > they contribute a card to the first trick. > If you want to be pedantic about this, then the bidding pad should be turned down when the auction has concluded (three passes in succession) and any player may consult the bidding pad until he has played to the first trick. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 04:29:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TISPO29805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 04:28:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TISJH29801 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 04:28:20 +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 15cA0m-0003O2-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:24:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:00:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] L73F? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Axx --- AKxxxxx QJTx xxx AQJTxxx K Qx Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. Declarer is quite an experienced club player: the defenders are inexperienced elderly ladies, though somewhat better than novices. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 05:18:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TJHoR03637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:17:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7TJHhH03609 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:17:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00630; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:13:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200108291913.MAA00630@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:00:40 BST." Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 12:13:49 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Axx --- > AKxxxxx QJTx > xxx AQJTxxx > K Qx > > Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South > discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays > the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. > > Declarer is quite an experienced club player: the defenders are > inexperienced elderly ladies, though somewhat better than novices. I don't know what the 14th card is---presumably not a diamond, since then he could have just pitched a diamond on a club. But regardless of what it is, I don't see any damage. Even if declarer did draw a false inference, is he going to convince me that he was going to rise with the ace absent the hesitation??? I don't think so, unless there's something interesting about the auction that would point to this play. The TD should have a gentle word with North about why her hesitation was improper, but that's all. -- 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 Aug 30 05:29:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TJTXp04254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:29:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TJTLH04250 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:29:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id R5KWZ2P8; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:25:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:37:39 -0500 To: David Stevenson , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David S. writes: > Axx --- > AKxxxxx QJTx > xxx AQJTxxx > K Qx > > Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South >discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays >the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. > > Declarer is quite an experienced club player: the defenders are >inexperienced elderly ladies, though somewhat better than novices. > Declairer violated 7D1. Too many cards in hand. 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 Thu Aug 30 06:17:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TKGgv04291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:16:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.de (mailout01.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TKGXH04287 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 06:16:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout01.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15cBhW-0005GJ-02; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:12:38 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.80.217.181]) by fmrl07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15cBhO-1sR6xsC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:12:30 +0200 Message-ID: <3B8D4B48.55948ADE@vwalther.de> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:06:32 +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] Case for AC References: <007d01c12336$d2185260$fbe336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <4GzQBOF2B8h7Ew6k@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <006f01c12d93$26d63720$b845063e@dodona> <002401c12e54$5fcebf40$0a01a8c0@davishi> 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 Hirsch Davis (e.a.) wrote: > > There is indeed a comma in the sentence, which, as David has pointed out, > makes the sentence ambiguous. When such a thing happens, there is a > tendency to look at the context in which the sentence occurs to determine if > the ambiguity can be resolved. The following sentence in L45B begins "In > playing a card from Dummy's hand...", which suggests that the following > action is part of playing the card. > > Further, L45B is entitled "Play of Card from Dummy" In it, two actions are > specified: the naming of the card and the facing of the card. If facing the > card is not part of "Play of Card from Dummy", why is it there at all? If > it's not part of playing the card from Dummy, it belongs elsewhere (or at > least clearly labelled something like "actions subsequent to the play of the > card from dummy"). > > I would also suggest that a floor TD may not have the time needed to work > out all of the grammatical nuances of the placement of a comma, nor should > the LC have such a TD placed in the position of having to attempt to do so. > > Hirsch > > Hirsch > Thats what I found at the beginnig of the lawbook (english version): ... The hundreds of headings and sub-headings can help a Director find the section of a Law that is applicable to the facts of a case (these headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws). So I think there is no ambiguity at all. We have to read: Law 45 A card is played from dummy if it is named, after that... (happens something different.) Volker Walther -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 07:03:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TL2Qt04317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:02:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TL2KH04312 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:02:21 +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 QAA17364 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:58:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA13731 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:58:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:58:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108292058.QAA13731@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 Perhaps going back to basics will help. Are we all agreed that "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy" (L41D, last sentence)? So if L45B says that declarer does something and also that dummy does something, how is it possible that whatever dummy does is playing a card? I don't think we as readers need to worry about commas, though no doubt the drafting committee would be well advised to do so. (My advice would be to split the current sentence into two, but no doubt some could misinterpret even that. I would also suggest that "play" might not be quite the right word in L42A3.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 07:07:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TL7Tb04329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:07:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TL7OH04325 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:07:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7TL3Wb16006 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:03:32 -0800 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:02:34 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query In-Reply-To: <002101c1302f$80bc3a20$8d0a7ad5@pbncomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, David Burn wrote: > [about a declarer's right to ask if he has been doubled] > Don't you believe it. By whom must he be told? By a defender, I would say. And if a defender asks the same question, the answer should come from declarer. > Not by dummy [etc] I concede it is hard to overrule the specific prohibition in L43A1(c). (Unless, of course, the declarer is refused an answer by everyone at the table and summons a director, at which time dummy may answer under 42A1.) > Not by either defender, for to do so would constitute illegal > communication between partners. After all, the other defender might not > know what trumps are either, and the defender who does know must not > communicate this information by any means. Sorry, this one I can't swallow. The same line of reasoning would prohibit ALL replies to declarer's questions. Declarer has L41B rights to ask a lot of other things than just what the contract is. And if the other defender benefits from his partner's answer - that's what L16A/73C is for. It specifically mentions questions and replies to questions not as illegal communication, but as extraneous information that is made available in the course of fulfilling one's obligations to one's opponents. > Not by a kibitzer, for to do so would be bound to break Law 78 in one > way or another. Yes. Kibitzers keep their traps shut. I think you mean 76B, though, not 78. It would seem declarer is allowed to look at his private score, to find out what his contract is and if it is doubled or redoubled, provided there is nothing else on that scoresheet (the rest of the auction, or the opening lead, or whatever else) that would be a violation of the no-aids-to-memory rule in L40. If the defender asks the question, it appears to me the above all still applies: he can look at his private score provided no additional information is on it, or he can ask declarer, both free of any problems. And, actually, I'm staring long and hard trying to find out exactly where it says defenders can't respond to each other's timely requests for review or for what the contract is. L73A1: Communication ... shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. Repeating calls on request exactly as they were made the first time doesn't convey any information beyond what the original call conveyed. L73B1 specifically disallows conveying information to partner by asking or answering questions *of the opponents*. It doesn't give you the right to refuse to answer the opponents, just an obligation to see your partner doesn't benefit from you fulfilling your duty. And, curiously, it doesn't prohibit answering your PARTNER's otherwise legal question, provided you make no extraneous remarks in addition to your reply. Is there an SO regulation banning giving your partner a review? Or is it the dreaded Spirit of the Laws fooling someone into misreading Law 73 to ban something that is, in fact, legal? 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 Aug 30 08:31:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TMVBF04367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:31:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TMV6H04363 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:31:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7TMRFR03582 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:27:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006a01c130d9$ada39560$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:17:16 -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: "David Stevenson" > > Axx --- > AKxxxxx QJTx > xxx AQJTxxx > K Qx > > Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South > discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays > the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. > > Declarer is quite an experienced club player: the defenders are > inexperienced elderly ladies, though somewhat better than novices. > There are several players at my club, not elderly ladies, against whom I would play the ace without a moment's thought. Against one of them I finally got to wield the knife I have held in reserve since I acquired it (from BLML or rgb, I forget which). When I led toward dummy's KJ10 recently, he hesitated markedly. "No need for that," I said, "I have the queen." As to the adjudication of this particular situation, I leave that to the more knowledgeable. 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 Aug 30 08:45:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TMjm204393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:45:48 +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 (f14.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TMjhH04389 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:45:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:41:47 -0700 Received: from 172.143.104.208 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:41:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.104.208] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 15:41:47 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2001 22:41:47.0860 (UTC) FILETIME=[C96FC140:01C130DB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a teams event with an odd number of teams, you'd usually run a three-way round robin over two rounds when putting teams together. This allows everyone to play a full set of boards and score like everyone else playing head to head, it just takes two rounds to do it. So, how do work things out when playing an odd number of rounds? I suppose that ideally you would seed the three least significant teams by the last round into this round robin, but they'll have to play half matches. If the field is scoring on a 20 VP scale, I suppose that 10 VPs should be available in each half match. Would you use the 20 VP scale, double the imp difference then halve the VP award? Is there a special scale? Or is there a different solution entirely? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Aug 30 09:01:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7TN1Ua04416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:01:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7TN1OH04412 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:01:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7TMvSG24332; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:57:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7TMvRS02694; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:57:28 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:57:27 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Todd Zimnoch cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question 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 Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > In a teams event with an odd number of teams, you'd usually run a > three-way round robin over two rounds when putting teams together. This > allows everyone to play a full set of boards and score like everyone else > playing head to head, it just takes two rounds to do it. > So, how do work things out when playing an odd number of rounds? I > suppose that ideally you would seed the three least significant teams by the > last round into this round robin, but they'll have to play half matches. If > the field is scoring on a 20 VP scale, I suppose that 10 VPs should be > available in each half match. Would you use the 20 VP scale, double the imp > difference then halve the VP award? Is there a special scale? Or is there > a different solution entirely? I've never found a rule for this, so I simply add up the imp's scored in the two half matches and convert that to VP's. For example: team A beats B by 5 and beats C by 10. A then gets the VP score for +15 imp's. B loses against C by 5 and beats C by 15, B then gets the VP score for +10. Finally, C gets the score for -25. Due to rounding, the total number of VP's may be different from the 60 that you expect. 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 Thu Aug 30 10:17:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U0G8i08745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:16:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7U0G0H08736 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-81-64.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.81.64] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15cFRH-0006v4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:12:08 +0100 Message-ID: <005e01c130e8$bd59a800$4e42063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5EF@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> <003401c1301a$1af48540$77297bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:37:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: blml Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise > > Surely there can be information contained > within a call other than merely suits. > > And is it really a valid approach to apply > the penalty for a COOT solely on the > information about suit? I believe not. > > A COOT can be very potent. First it > deprives an opponent of his rightful turn > thereby upsetting the balance of information. > And when the outcome entails a change of > call even L25/L27 recognize the power of > the information created within conventional > actions. > > regards > roger pewick > +=+ As Secretary of the WBFLC I am concerned with what the law is and with what the WBFLC says it is. If my colleagues in committee stand me on my head I stand on my head. As co-ordinator of the drafting sub-comm I am interested in whether the law should be changed. It seems it is to this hat that your thoughts are addressed? I do not know that I am persuaded this law is bad in its effects. In my mind it is essential to retain the link to 26B. As with many parts of the laws I just can't wait to get my hands on the language and the presentation. If my colleagues will bear with me! :-)) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 10:17:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U0G9g08746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:16:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7U0G2H08738 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:16:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-81-64.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.81.64] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15cFRJ-0006v4-00; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:12:10 +0100 Message-ID: <005f01c130e8$be87c7c0$4e42063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Martin Sinot" , References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5F0@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:03:52 +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 5.00.2615.200 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: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:38 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 31 Surprise > > Well, thank you for this very clear and logical > explanation. For the lawmakers: might I suggest > to rephrase L31 in a way similar to L27 to express > this explanation? It wouldn't change the rules, > but it would certainly be more readable. > +=+ Rarely, rarely, comest thou Spirit of Delight........... If I had written this law it might have read, in part, "In all other cases the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call; the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, and see Law 23." ~ 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 Aug 30 12:46:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U2joi08867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:45:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep2.012.net.il (popb.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.202]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7U2jiH08863 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:45:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 012.net.il ([212.199.77.147]) by fep2.012.net.il with ESMTP id <20010830023825.LENA25029.fep2@012.net.il>; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:38:25 +0300 Message-ID: <3B8DB5CD.2090602@012.net.il> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 05:41:01 +0200 From: Zvi Shilon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.2) Gecko/20010726 Netscape6/6.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If west's 14th card is a diamond, the hand is cold without finding the diamond king. Zvi Shilon Modiin, Israel David Stevenson wrote: > Axx --- > AKxxxxx QJTx > xxx AQJTxxx > K Qx > > Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South >discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays >the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. > > Declarer is quite an experienced club player: the defenders are >inexperienced elderly ladies, though somewhat better than novices. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 14:34:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U4YMi14474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:34:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7U4YGH14470 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:34:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7U4UOR27491 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:30:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007f01c1310c$69f02940$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200108292058.QAA13731@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:28:56 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Steve Willner" > Perhaps going back to basics will help. Are we all agreed that > "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy" (L41D, last > sentence)? So if L45B says that declarer does something and also that > dummy does something, how is it possible that whatever dummy does is > playing a card? How indeed? > > I don't think we as readers need to worry about commas, though no doubt > the drafting committee would be well advised to do so. (My advice > would be to split the current sentence into two, but no doubt some > could misinterpret even that. Perhaps: B. Play of Card from Dummy. Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming it. Dummy then picks up the card and tables it face-up apart from dummy's remaining cards. Declarer may do this himself if necessary. > (I would also suggest that "play" might > not be quite the right word in L42A3.) Eagle eye Steve! Perhaps: 3. Place and Turn Cards for Declarer He places and turns cards played from dummy by declarer, following Laws 45B and 45G (see Law 45F if dummy suggests a play in any way). 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 Aug 30 15:30:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U5UZk16923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:30:35 +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 f7U5UUH16919 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:30:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7U5QcR14892 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:26:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b801c13114$44f1f8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:22:20 -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: "Gordon Bower" > > And, actually, I'm staring long and hard trying to find out exactly where > it says defenders can't respond to each other's timely requests for review > or for what the contract is. > L20D - A request to have calls restated shall be responded to only by an opponent. L41C doesn't seem to impose that restriction when a player wants to know what the contract is and whether it was doubled or redoubled. 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 Aug 30 16:35:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U6Z8g21292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:35:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7U6Z2H21270 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:35:02 +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 QAA08631 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:38:53 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:20:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:25:24 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/08/2001 16:24:35 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >In a teams event with an odd number of teams, you'd >usually run a three-way round robin over two rounds >when putting teams together. This allows everyone >to play a full set of boards and score like everyone >else playing head to head, it just takes two rounds >to do it. > So, how do work things out when playing an odd >number of rounds? I suppose that ideally you would >seed the three least significant teams by the last >round into this round robin, but they'll have to >play half matches. If the field is scoring on a 20 >VP scale, I suppose that 10 VPs should be available >in each half match. Would you use the 20 VP scale, >double the imp difference then halve the VP award? >Is there a special scale? Or is there a different >solution entirely? All Australian one-day Swiss teams use the WBF 25 VP scale. They often have 7 rounds of 8-board matches. A few years ago, I played in such a country congress Swiss teams. The SO had directed the TD to have an unseeded first round draw. As luck would have it, 39 teams entered. Also as luck would have it, the two best teams in the field were selected to play in the first round half-match triangle. Team A beat Team B by 2 imps. Team A beat Team Z by 40 imps. Team B beat Team Z by 20 imps. A simple aggregation of net imps would have given Team A 25 VPs, Team B 21 VPs, and Team Z nil VPs. However, the TD used the alternative scoring method. Therefore: Team A beat Team B 8 VPs to 7 VPs. Team A beat Team Z 12.5 VPs to nil VPs. Team B beat Team Z 12.5 VPs to 1.5 VPs. Resulting in Team A 20.5 VPs, Team B 19.5 VPs, and Team Z 1.5 VPs. Which of the two methods is fairer I leave to the blml list to judge. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 17:50:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U7nsx26395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:49:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7U7nmH26391 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:49:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA22334 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 07:45:49 GMT Message-ID: <3B8DEF51.5167C63B@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:46:25 +0200 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" a écrit : > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > In a teams event with an odd number of teams, you'd usually run a > > three-way round robin over two rounds when putting teams together. This > > allows everyone to play a full set of boards and score like everyone else > > playing head to head, it just takes two rounds to do it. > > So, how do work things out when playing an odd number of rounds? I > > suppose that ideally you would seed the three least significant teams by the > > last round into this round robin, but they'll have to play half matches. If > > the field is scoring on a 20 VP scale, I suppose that 10 VPs should be > > available in each half match. Would you use the 20 VP scale, double the imp > > difference then halve the VP award? Is there a special scale? Or is there > > a different solution entirely? > > I've never found a rule for this, so I simply add up the imp's scored in > the two half matches and convert that to VP's. For example: team A beats > B by 5 and beats C by 10. A then gets the VP score for +15 imp's. B loses > against C by 5 and beats C by 15, B then gets the VP score for +10. > Finally, C gets the score for -25. Due to rounding, the total number of > VP's may be different from the 60 that you expect. > > Henk > amazingly, i came to the same conclusion and this method is sometimes used in france, for odd-numbered swiss teams. however this three-way match counts as only one round and the expected total number of VP is 30 and not 60 (or 45 with the modern 25-5 scale). the constraint to run smoothly the competition, with, simultaneously head to head and 3-way matches, is that one round is constituted by a match played in two halves. The main difficulty is to explain players how it operates and how they are expected to write the score sheets. jp rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 18:16:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U8Gmm26427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:16:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f61.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7U8GhH26423 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:12:46 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:12:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:12:46 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2001 08:12:46.0679 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D48AE70:01C1312B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk snip > >There are several players at my club, not elderly ladies, against whom I >would play the ace without a moment's thought. > >Against one of them I finally got to wield the knife I have held in reserve >since I acquired it (from BLML or rgb, I forget which). When I led toward >dummy's KJ10 recently, he hesitated markedly. > There is of course the story of the player who ducked the queen and let the contract through. When taken to task by partner he said you thought so long I thought you had it. Alan Hill _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Aug 30 18:47:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U8lWh26454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:47:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7U8lPH26447 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:47:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-86-144.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.86.144] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15cNQB-000KMx-00; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:43:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c13130$2eb6aec0$9056063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Outward bound Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:44:20 +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; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:47:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-86-144.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.86.144] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15cNQ8-000KMx-00; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:43:29 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c13130$2d6e9e60$9056063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <00b801c13114$44f1f8a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:33:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query > > L41C doesn't seem to impose that restriction > when a player wants to know what the contract > is and whether it was doubled or redoubled. > +=+ If the law is silent I think Law 81C5 takes over. In the case of the Championships in Bali the regulations make it clear that the screenmate must provide the information. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 19:21:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U9L8r26491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:21:08 +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 f7U9L2H26487 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:21:03 +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 15cNwg-00084V-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:17:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:52:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query References: <200108291551.IAA28130@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200108291551.IAA28130@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: > >> Adam Beneschan writes >> > >> >I think the correct answer here is, "Don't be silly. This is declarer >> >we're talking about, and we don't care about him giving unauthorized >> >information to dummy, so why are we going to pick nits about how he >> >phrases his questions???" >> > >> >Now if the question was about a *defender* . . . well, I don't know >> >the answer. >> >> Since the Law is the same for declarer or a defender, then I suggest >> you worry about the Law for a defender, then deduce it for declarer. >> >> I do not really see why people have become so chary here of whether it >> matters what the Law is. While you may apply commonsense to your >> dealings with others, an *excellent* starting point is to know what is >> and is not legal, and then worry about how to apply it to others or to >> oneself. > >Uh oh, have I been taken seriously again? Drat. I really *must* get >that smiley key on my keyboard fixed. > >. . . Seriously, I agree completely with you, but my comment was >intended to be partly facetious. Sorry for any misunderstanding. My apologies then, but there have been a lot of posts recently asking why we are bothering with finding what the Laws mean. I do not htink all of them are meant to be humorous. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 19:29:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7U9Sqi26510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:28:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7U9SlH26506 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:28:48 +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 15cO4D-000JpX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:24:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:23:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > > Axx --- > AKxxxx QJTx > xxx AQJTxxx > K Qx > > Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South >discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays >the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. > > Declarer is quite an experienced club player: the defenders are >inexperienced elderly ladies, though somewhat better than novices. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 20:02:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UA2bR27729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:02:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7UA2VH27725 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:02:32 +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 LAA02231; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:55:04 +0200 (MEST) 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 LAA28623; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 11:58:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <015e01c1313a$dc134880$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:02:20 +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: David Stevenson > Axx --- > AKxxxxx QJTx > xxx AQJTxxx > K Qx > > Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer takes two rounds of hearts, South > discarding clubs, and then leads a diamond. West hesitates, then plays > the 9. Declarer now finesses into singleton king and cries foul. AG : can declarer explain to me why any North in possession of his/her senses would hesitate with Kx ? No, he can't. So, the hesitation doesn't suggest Hx, and however improper it isn't misleading. Contrast with the hesitation in the classical case of a finesse to the Queen. There are cases when you should cover the J-lead in front of K10xx, thus the hesitation suggests possession of the Queen. None of this 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 Thu Aug 30 22:13:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UCBGw03428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UCBBH03409 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:11:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.55]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GIVRAA00.AP2 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:13:22 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-191.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.191]) by mail4.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9i 7/10179355); 30 Aug 2001 22:07:50 Message-ID: <003401c1314b$79c8de40$bfd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 22:01:17 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> Axx --- >> AKxxxxx QJTx >> xxx AQJTxxx >> K Qx >> >> Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer ... leads a diamond. >>West hesitates, then plays the 9. Declarer now finesses >>into singleton king and cries foul. > >AG : can declarer explain to me why any North in >possession of his/her senses would hesitate with Kx ? >No, he can't. So, the hesitation doesn't suggest Hx, >and however improper it isn't misleading. Exactly. The hesitation suggests two small diamonds, or perhaps Kxx, since these are the only holdings where North has any problem. It could easily have helped declarer pick the singleton king. It is fairly remarkable that such an inexperienced player played the nine (was it count? an attempt to be deceptive? certainly it can take time to select the nine rather than the small one). Table result stands. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Aug 30 23:21:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UDLCp05372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:21:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7UDL6H05368 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:21:06 +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 15cRgz-000EBW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:17:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:14:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question 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 Todd Zimnoch writes > In a teams event with an odd number of teams, you'd usually run a >three-way round robin over two rounds when putting teams together. This >allows everyone to play a full set of boards and score like everyone else >playing head to head, it just takes two rounds to do it. > So, how do work things out when playing an odd number of rounds? I >suppose that ideally you would seed the three least significant teams by the >last round into this round robin, but they'll have to play half matches. If >the field is scoring on a 20 VP scale, I suppose that 10 VPs should be >available in each half match. Would you use the 20 VP scale, double the imp >difference then halve the VP award? Is there a special scale? Or is there >a different solution entirely? Err - are you talking about Swiss Teams? In England we have always had scales for "short" threesomes. It is normal for the first round to be played as a short threesome, picked at random, so that late arrivals can be accommodated easily, and so that unbalanced matching does not have too long term an effect [we do not believe in seeding]. It is normal for the last round to be a short threesome so that you can allow withdrawals before the last round. In between we play as many "long" threesomes as possible, allowing for any meal break. After the first round, threesomes are taken from the bottom of the field, but teams do not play in threesomes more than once. Since we have done this for years English teams are used to the procedure. For short threesomes the VP scales are printed on the table numbers. The number of VPs available in a match is twice the number of VPs available in a short threesome. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 01:00:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UExec05424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:59:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UExYH05420 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:59:35 +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 KAA21096 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21155 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:55:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:55:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108301455.KAA21155@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > can declarer explain to me why any North in possession of his/her > senses would hesitate with Kx ? No, he can't. Does L73F2 require that the false inference that was drawn be reasonable? It probably _should_ require that, but does it? Is it part of "innocent player?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 01:56:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UFu2611623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:56:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7UFtuH11599 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:55:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-6.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.6]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f7UFq0004717 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:52:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B8E5F37.AD5E73DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:43:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Nice opponents. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm playing 7Cl, afterwards turning out to be the only one in the room to do so. Apparently the contract is stone cold, but I botch up play, as usual. I take an inferior line, depending on clubs to be 2-2, or if that fails hearts to be 3-3. Hearts are 3-3, at which point the defender with the third trump shouts "how can you play so badly and still win". At which point I play the last round of trumps, thereby cutting me off from hand and blocking the spades. So I claim for down one. I'm happy to be dummy the next board, and go to wash my hands and blow off steam. Five minutes later I return, and my partner tells me the opponents have marked 7 clubs made. His contract had taken only seconds, and then they had spent the rest of the time figuring out how I could go down in seven clubs. They came to the conclusion that not even I could go down, when still holding a trump to ruff the last spade. Thanks, Bob, Chris. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 01:57:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UFuuR11819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:56:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe74.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UFuoH11791 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:56:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:52:52 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.232] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <003401c1314b$79c8de40$bfd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:50:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2001 15:52:52.0906 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3E0A0A0:01C1316B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 7:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L73F? | Alain Gottcheiner wrote: | >From: David Stevenson | >> Axx --- | >> AKxxxxx QJTx | >> xxx AQJTxxx | >> K Qx | >> | >> Contract 6H, lead Hx. Declarer ... leads a diamond. | >>West hesitates, then plays the 9. Declarer now finesses | >>into singleton king and cries foul. | > | >AG : can declarer explain to me why any North in | >possession of his/her senses would hesitate with Kx ? | >No, he can't. So, the hesitation doesn't suggest Hx, | >and however improper it isn't misleading. | | Exactly. The hesitation suggests two small diamonds, | or perhaps Kxx, since these are the only holdings where | North has any problem. It could easily have helped declarer | pick the singleton king. It is fairly remarkable that such | an inexperienced player played the nine (was it count? | an attempt to be deceptive? certainly it can take time | to select the nine rather than the small one). | | Table result stands. | | Peter Gill | Australia. Reminds me of some time ago early in the hand RHO took a long time to play the 8 from 86. As I was missing the Q and to my detriment I then proceeded to tie myself into a Gordian knot in order to get to dummy to finesse against the Q. In fact the reason for the hesitation was to figure out how to play his cards deceptively. He accomplished his aim not by the card he played but the way he played it. In light of L73D I would think that deciding between two small cards was not a bridge reason to huddle for more than a very short time. I don't like to disagree with Peter but is not a prime motivation to 'avoid hesitating' with Kx because to hesitate with xx and partner have the honor would have L73 repercussions and it would be 'dumb' to 'give the show away by huddling ' with Kx(xx). Also, if it was so momentous [and according to the facts it was- the huddle was pronounced] to the player what he was going to play to the first diamond he should not have quit his card to the first trick until he knew which diamond he would play when the time came. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 04:17:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UIGlY23048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 04:16:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UIGfH23044 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 04:16:42 +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 OAA03829 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA21591 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:12:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:12:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108301812.OAA21591@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > As luck would have it, 39 teams entered. Also as > luck would have it, the two best teams in the field > were selected to play in the first round half-match > triangle. > > Team A beat Team B by 2 imps. > Team A beat Team Z by 40 imps. > Team B beat Team Z by 20 imps. > > A simple aggregation of net imps would have given > Team A 25 VPs, Team B 21 VPs, and Team Z nil VPs. > > However, the TD used the alternative scoring > method. Therefore: > > Team A beat Team B 8 VPs to 7 VPs. > Team A beat Team Z 12.5 VPs to nil VPs. > Team B beat Team Z 12.5 VPs to 1.5 VPs. > > Resulting in Team A 20.5 VPs, Team B 19.5 VPs, and > Team Z 1.5 VPs. I think the second is fairer. Why should beating Team Z by 40 instead of 20 make much difference? Surely the direct play between the two top teams is more important. In case it wasn't clear, what the TD apparently did was: double the IMP difference in each half-match to convert from the actual 4-board half-match to the WBF 8-board scale, then compute VP's on the 8-board scale, then divide the VP result by 2 to go back to a half-match, then add VP's for the two half-matches played by each team. In principle, rather than multiplying IMPs by 2 and using the 8-board scale, the initial VP difference should have been computed on a scale specifically designed for 4-board matches. I doubt a 4-board scale exists, but the method would be possible in a longer match. For example, if a full match is 16 boards and some teams play two 8-board half-matches, use the 8-board scale to compute VP's for each half-match, divide VP's by 2, then add the half-matches for each team. In practice, the WBF scale is not too far from linear, so which scale you use won't make much difference (until somebody loses by 0.5 VP but would have won under a different method!). Perhaps a more burning question in Richard's case is whether teams A and B can play each other again. They have only played a half- match against each other, but surely the two best teams should play at least a full match of direct competition. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 05:53:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UJrDX24381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:53:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UJr6H24365 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 05:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-004.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.196]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA98157 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:49:04 +0100 (IST) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:49:29 +0100 Message-ID: <01C13195.438A26A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Law 55 or other Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:49:28 +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 West (defender) wins the second trick. South (declarer) leads from dummy (small heart) to the third trick and East follows suit (Jack of Hearts). West hasn't noticed anything irregular and leads (small Diamond) to the third trick. Where do we go now? 55A or 53C or other? Heading off for Tabiano to be bewildered and maybe get 'my ears washed' too. 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 Aug 31 06:00:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UK05G26084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:00:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UJxxH26056 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:00:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt91m.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.54]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA32588; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:56:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <004401c1318d$03fc4a20$36a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:50:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it to be turned down > after the first three cards are played. > > Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face > up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. > It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." The context of this footnote focuses on written aids to memory. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 06:11:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UKAtt28740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:10:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7UKAnH28727 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:10:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7UK6uR05314 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a801c1318f$3d3125c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200108271901.PAA21609@cfa183.harvard.edu> <010601c12f38$e78f8060$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000b01c1300e$cb54eb20$77297bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 12C3 for Directors Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:59:11 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > I think ZAs should provide a generic document > > defining what is "general knowledge." > > > +=+ In a Zone like Zone 1 with 40 plus NBOs > and many facets of the game varying amongst > them, pan-Zonal general knowledge and > experience would be hard to come by. > Our intra-Zonal international regulations have > to overcome the absence of Zonal criteria > that apply universally within the domestic > tournaments of the Zone 1 NBOs. That is to say > there are some that do but many do not. > Some American colleagues have said to > me that similar situations exist in the USA > between East and West Coast players. Is > this so?+=+ The difference seems to be a lot less than in the old days, when Marshall Miles gave a good summary of it in 1957 (in the classic *How to Win at Duplicate Bridge*). He identified it as a Culbertson vs Goren style, Culbertson prevailing in the West and Goren in the East. The main difference was in the number of forcing sequences, with Westerners playing as non-forcing many bids that would be forcing in the East. That difference seems hardly to exist anymore. But that's not the sort of "general knowledge" that I am talking about. When someone opens 3S, or bids 3S over RHO's opening 1C, or bids 3S over partner's opening 1C, in the absence of some (Alertable) convention or special agreement these are, as is general knowledge, weak bids featuring only a good long suit. With the coming of splinter bids and weak jump takeout responses, the third example is almost unknown these days, but I know of no unAlertable meaning that differs from the classic meaning. Anyway, I hold that L75C says I do not have to disclose the meanings of those bids. > > > > I have continual difficulty with our unAlerted > > double jump in a new suit in response to a > > one-of-a-suit natural opening. General > > knowledge is that this is a preemptive bid, > > showing a good long suit and a very weak hand. > > Per L75C that inference need not be disclosed, > > and yet TDs hereabouts insist that it must be > > explained to our ignorant life master opponents. > > > +=+ Maybe Directors think that (?some) life > masters have a different general knowledge and > experience, as for example that such bids are > expected to be cues? Do the alerting regs > say anything about strength of natural jumps? Only that an agreement concerning strength (or length) that is "unusual" must be Alerted. Also required is the Alert of "bids, that by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them." "Ascribed" where? All I'm asking is that the ACBL document what it considers to be "expected meanings." Sure, some life masters have a different knowledge than I have, but I would call it more a lack of knowledge than a different knowledge. As to experience, they could hardly have experienced a different unAlertable meaning than "weak, preemptive," for those double jumps I mentioned above. Only in social bridge or a novice group, which doesn't count. When L75C says that inferences derived from general knowledge and experience need not be disclosed, it means knowledge/experience of the bidder's partner, not of the opponents (who may have little of each). L75C: ..."but he need not disclose inferences drawn from *his* general knowledge and experience." [emphasis mine] 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 Aug 31 06:20:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UKKFW01026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:20:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UKJqH00963 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:19:53 +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 15cYE8-0005c5-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:26:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question References: <200108301812.OAA21591@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200108301812.OAA21591@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 >In principle, rather than multiplying IMPs by 2 and using the 8-board >scale, the initial VP difference should have been computed on a scale >specifically designed for 4-board matches. I doubt a 4-board scale >exists, but the method would be possible in a longer match. You need four-board scales, you get four-board scales. It seems a very strange idea to run such competitions and not have the scales! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 06:45:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UKjXo06337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7UKjOH06330 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15cYcv-0002uj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:41:27 +0000 Message-ID: <11Osc0EqHqj7EwJc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:28:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55 or other References: <01C13195.438A26A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C13195.438A26A0.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 >West (defender) wins the second trick. >South (declarer) leads from dummy (small heart) to the third trick and East >follows suit (Jack of Hearts). >West hasn't noticed anything irregular and leads (small Diamond) to the third >trick. > >Where do we go now? 55A or 53C or other? L55A in my view. Yes, I know it does not say it, but the best interpretation is that L53C only applies until partner plays a card. >Heading off for Tabiano to be bewildered and maybe get 'my ears washed' too. That's my prerogative. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 06:45:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UKjXM06338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7UKjOH06329 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 06:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15cYcv-0002ui-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:41:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:25:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> <004401c1318d$03fc4a20$36a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <004401c1318d$03fc4a20$36a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jerry Fusselman writes >David Stevenson writes >> Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it to be turned down >> after the first three cards are played. >> >> Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face >> up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. >> > >It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during the auction >and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." The context of this >footnote focuses on written aids to memory. If we are to include things given us by the sponsoring organisation, Jerry, then your reading of the footnote would ban the following: Boards for the cards, because they have a memory aid to bidding and vulnerability Bidding boxes, because they comprise a memory aid to the bidding so far There is no point in reading that footnote in an unhelpful way, which would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge. Surely we can just read it as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 07:01:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UL1GG06364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:01:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UL1AH06360 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:01:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7UKvGb24454 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:57:16 -0800 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:56:16 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question 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, 30 Aug 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > You need four-board scales, you get four-board scales. It seems a > very strange idea to run such competitions and not have the scales! Perhaps it seems a little less strange if you're aware that there are many players in North America who have never seen these scales. I myself, in the 8 seasons I have played tournaments here, have played many swisses with Win-Loss scoring ("4-point VP scale", with tongue in cheek), a significant number on the 20-point scale which has finally surpassed win-loss in popularity, and exactly one on the 30-point scale. The same 20-point scale has been used, without modification, in matches from 4 to 9 boards. I found it odd, using the 20-point scale in 4-board matches. That's because once, a very long time ago, buried in some book long since out of print (no idea where or when) I saw a pageful of VP tables, one for 4-board matches, one for 5, one for 6 or 7, one for 8 or 9, and so on. I honestly believed, having never encountered these in ACBL competition, that they had been officially abandoned so long ago noone remembered them or missed them enough to ever comment on their not being used. That said - it seems it makes no difference what scale is used in any given event, as long as the conditions of contest say what the scale will be. Some scales are more popular than others. Some scales have arguable theoretical advantages over others. All scales exert some degree of influence over how you'll play the last few boards of a match. Probably the directors in my area have just decided that the (small) theoretical advantage of using various scales is outweighed by the (large) risk of scoring error if a VP scale other than the one printed on the convention card and private scoresheets is used. I can't speak to what solution is actually used in ACBL tournaments, since the change from win-loss to VP scoring coincided roughly with a change from 7 8-board matches to 8 7-board matches as the standard format. The problem Todd raised only occurs when # matches and # teams are both odd. 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 Aug 31 07:07:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UL7PL06376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:07:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov [128.183.16.143]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UL7KH06372 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:07:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7UL1Ru07902 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:01:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108302101.f7UL1Ru07902@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:01:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Aug 30, 2001 09:25:29 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:25:29 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > > Jerry Fusselman writes > >David Stevenson writes > >> Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it to be turned down > >> after the first three cards are played. > >> > >> Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face > >> up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. > >> > > > >It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during the auction > >and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." The context of this > >footnote focuses on written aids to memory. > > If we are to include things given us by the sponsoring organisation, > Jerry, then your reading of the footnote would ban the following: > > Boards for the cards, because they have a memory aid to bidding and > vulnerability > > Bidding boxes, because they comprise a memory aid to the bidding so far > > There is no point in reading that footnote in an unhelpful way, which > would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge. Surely we can just read it > as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? > TY: I think there is a difference here. In 41.B, there is an explicit proscription against a review of the auction after a player contributes to the first trick. To me, this would include either a verbal or written review. All the other things you allude to above are examples of information that is explicitly allowed to a player. The information on the bidding pad is information that is explicitly denied to a player after a certain point in time. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 07:18:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ULI8G06395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:18:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ULI2H06390 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:18:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f7ULE9b25419 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:14:09 -0800 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:13:09 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query 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, 30 Aug 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > Jerry Fusselman writes > >David Stevenson writes > >> Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face > >> up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. > > > >It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during the auction > >and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." The context of this > >footnote focuses on written aids to memory. > > If we are to include things given us by the sponsoring organisation, > Jerry, then your reading of the footnote would ban the following: > > Boards for the cards, because they have a memory aid to bidding and > vulnerability The appearance of the boards is not an AID to the vulnerability, it DETERMINES the vulnerability. Law 2 is quite clear that if, for whatever reason, the markings on a board do not conform to the standard pattern, the conditions marked on the board are the ones that apply. Boards are not "given us by the sponsoring organization", either: they are specified in the laws as equipment necessary to play Duplicate Bridge just like packs of 52 cards (and no acorns) are. In rubber bridge it is allowed to inquire as to the state of the score, but forbidden to do so in such a way as to call your partner's attention to it. We don't exactly have a parallel in the laws. > Bidding boxes, because they comprise a memory aid to the bidding so far Is it not universally agreed that, BECAUSE of the footnote to L40, the bidding cards must be replaced in the boxes at the start of the play period? (There is controversy in the US currently as to whether it's better to remove the cards after the final pass, or when the opening lead is faced. But it's plainly against ACBL bid-box regulations to leave the cards exposed at a time when you're no longer allowed to ask for a review. It is my understanding that regulation exists specifically to avoid infringing L40, while reducing the UI and time issues connected to spoken bidding and reviewing.) > There is no point in reading that footnote in an unhelpful way, which > would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge. Surely we can just read it > as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? I, for one, don't find that reading unhelpful or destructive. I find it to be the guiding principle which governs how such things as bid-boxes, private scoresheets, convention cards, and the like may be used. And I find the current regulations set up in such way as to avoid infringing it. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 07:44:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ULiSl06429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:44:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin1.bigpond.com (juicer13.bigpond.com [139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ULiNH06425 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:44:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.69]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GIWHTL00.0RS for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:46:33 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-144.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.144]) by bwmam01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9i 8311/3426134); 31 Aug 2001 07:46:33 Message-ID: <014b01c1319b$8b90d060$90df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Written Bidding Pad (from Law 41C Grammar ...) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:34:26 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Jerry Fusselman writes >>David Stevenson writes >>> Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it >>> to be turned down after the first three cards are played. >>> >>> Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to >>>remain face up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. >> Jerry: >>It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during >>the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." >>The context of this footnote focuses on written aids to memory. > David: > If we are to include things given us by the sponsoring >organisation, >Jerry, then your reading of the footnote would ban the following: > >Boards for the cards, because they have a memory aid >to bidding and vulnerability > >Bidding boxes, because they comprise a memory aid to >the bidding so far > > There is no point in reading that footnote in an unhelpful >way, which would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge. >Surely we can just read it as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? David's interpretation makes sense to me. As the ABF (Australian Bridge Federation) has in the past used Jerry's interpretation to justify their rule, I am interested in whether David's interpretation has widespread support from the august members of BLML. I am thinking about the possible Fall of this rule. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 07:57:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7ULvHG06442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:57:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7ULvBH06438 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:57:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cmesa.ix.netcom.com (user-33qt91m.dialup.mindspring.com [199.174.164.54]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02307; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00d901c1319d$641356a0$36a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> <004401c1318d$03fc4a20$36a4aec7@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:47:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Jerry Fusselman writes > >David Stevenson writes > >> Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it to be turned down > >> after the first three cards are played. > >> > >> Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face > >> up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. > >> > > > >It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during the auction > >and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." The context of this > >footnote focuses on written aids to memory. > > If we are to include things given us by the sponsoring organisation, > Jerry, then your reading of the footnote would ban the following: > > Boards for the cards, because they have a memory aid to bidding and > vulnerability > > Bidding boxes, because they comprise a memory aid to the bidding so far > > There is no point in reading that footnote in an unhelpful way, which > would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge. Surely we can just read it > as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? It "would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge" to prevent reviewing the auction during the tenth trick? I think not. Indeed, your proposal (i.e., to allow a written record of the auction to stay visible during the entire play period) would violate the clear intent of L41B. If players are not entitled to have the auction restated during the tenth trick, then they are not entitled to look at a written record of the auction during the tenth trick either---personal or not. I stand by my reading of L40E2*. Your humorous discussion of bidding boxes and such is a straw man, as L20B gives rights to all players for a review of the auction during the auction period. If players are entitled to have the auction restated during the auction period, then they are also entitled to look at the visual record of the auction during the auction period. Jerry Fusselman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 08:09:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UM8fs06470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:08:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f7UM8YH06466 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:08:36 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29610 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2001 22:04:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Rui) (217.129.46.251) by 213.228.128.56 with SMTP; 30 Aug 2001 22:04:29 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Rui M.L.Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 55 or other Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:03:52 +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) X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <11Osc0EqHqj7EwJc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well, we are in disagreement here. 53C - "... the proper lead stands and ALL CARDS played in error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty". In my opinion we can come to the limit case where we have 3 played cards: Dummy´s, partner´s and declarer´s. As long as the TD is satisfied that West hasn´t noticed anything (if he does, 16C2 takes usually care of it). And as David pointed out, 55A "does not say" what he tried to interpret there. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 9:28 PM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55 or other > > > Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >West (defender) wins the second trick. > >South (declarer) leads from dummy (small heart) to the third > trick and East > >follows suit (Jack of Hearts). > >West hasn't noticed anything irregular and leads (small Diamond) > to the third > >trick. > > > >Where do we go now? 55A or 53C or other? > > L55A in my view. Yes, I know it does not say it, but the best > interpretation is that L53C only applies until partner plays a card. > > >Heading off for Tabiano to be bewildered and maybe get 'my ears > washed' too. > > That's my prerogative. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 08:32:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UMWCX08000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:32:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UMW6H07986 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:32:07 +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 SAA15335 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21919 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:28:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:28:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108302228.SAA21919@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 55 or other X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Rui M.L.Marques" > 53C - "... the proper lead stands and ALL CARDS played in error to this > trick may be withdrawn without penalty". In my opinion we can come to the > limit case where we have 3 played cards: Dummy´s, partner´s and declarer´s. I tend to agree with this. Else why the plural 'cards'? > As long as the TD is satisfied that West hasn´t noticed anything (if he > does, 16C2 takes usually care of it). And as David pointed out, 55A "does > not say" what he tried to interpret there. If it is _declarer_ who led out of turn, is the card exposed by the defender not on lead AI or UI to each side? In other words, which is the "offending side" for L16C purposes? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 08:52:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UMqbt11533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:52:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UMqVH11517 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:52:31 +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 SAA15894 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:48:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA21953 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:48:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 18:48:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108302248.SAA21953@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Bower > That said - it seems it makes no difference what scale is used in any > given event, as long as the conditions of contest say what the scale will > be. That's true if all the matches are the same length. Our problem, though, was how to score half-matches. Winning by 30 IMP's (25-5 VP's on the WBF scale for 8 boards) is pretty good going in an 8-board match. Winning by 30 IMP's in a 4-board match is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, there ought to be a reasonable chance to score 25-5 (factored to 12.5-2.5, of course) even in a half-match. But 15 IMPs over four boards is probably too few to earn such a big win. David S. is right: the proper thing is to have a VP scale for the number of boards you are playing. Maybe the Aussie TD had one, but my copy of the WBF scales doesn't give anything shorter than 8. Failing that, doubling the IMP difference may be the best that can be done. The ACBL 20 and 30 VP scales are intended to apply to matches of 7-8 boards. I don't know whether the ACBL has official scales for longer or shorter matches, but there should be if a single event has matches of different length. The WBF table I have goes from 8 to 48 boards. (Not every value is included. The table starts 8, 12, 14, .... I suppose the idea is to use the nearest scale for matches of other lengths.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 09:20:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UNK0d17805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:20:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f108.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UNJsH17801 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:19:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:15:57 -0700 Received: from 172.143.91.253 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:15:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.91.253] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: siegmund@mosquitonet.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, rpmputnam@aol.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:15:56 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2001 23:15:57.0117 (UTC) FILETIME=[B94D4ED0:01C131A9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This did actually happen at a sectional in Seaside, OR and, sad to say, I was on one of the teams playing this half-match 3-way in the final round. This was a while ago that it happened, but I have need of a solution now. I'm coding my own scoring program, so it will need to deal with situations like this. Ideally you can enter the score as a difference of IMPs and that's actually what the current score slips have you fill out. So, what do I do with the IMPs in this scenario? After this did actually happen we had a long discussion though we really didn't care -- we were too busy arguing about the miserable performance. :/ The most obvious example of what we find unfair about this it to imagine having 2 half-match threeways. If a total of 40 VP would be awarded to those 6 teams in that match, but 60 VP if they were playing head-to-head, then the teams in the half-matches are at a disadvantage. It seems that the VP awarded per half match should be on a 15VP scale (assuming that the head to heads are playing 20 VP). That at least gives out the same number of VPs, but this is also unfair! It allows one team to collect 30 VP in a round when the rest of the field only has a potential to gain 20. Alas, I have no solution for this and I suspect that it could be proved that there is no 'fair' solution if anyone's got a formal mathematical model for scoring I could work from. So, to me, the best solution appears to be to set up in this match the teams whose chance to place in the event will be least affected by being in this match, but maybe that's not true either. What if the top four seeds have a three-way tie with the 4th seed decently behind and the top 3 could actually play without a rematch? Well, luck of the draw isn't a new concept in team events. -Todd cc: Roger Putman, blml >From: Gordon Bower >To: Todd Zimnoch >Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question >Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:19:13 -0800 (AKDT) > > >I can't tell whether you're asking what SHOULD be done, or trying to find >out how it's handled various places, or just trying to find out what will >happen if you should bump into this situation yourself in a regional >sometime. > >If you're interested in the purely practical aspect, you might want to >contact Roger Putnam at rpmputnam@aol.com and ask him how he handles this, >since it'll be his decision that counts at any tournament either of us is >at anytime soon. > >Don't be surprised if he just says "I make sure before I start it won't >happen," since there are several things (moving teams between two parallel >events, having even numbers of rounds, getting a fill-in team together >before round 3 starts) that can avoid it. I've never seen it happen, >myself. > >GRB _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 31 09:51:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UNp0e17826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:51:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UNotH17822 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:50:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from ACCORDION2.acsys.anu.edu.au (accordion2.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.15]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA28643 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:47:03 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010831094611.02e5d840@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:47:03 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Accidentally sent to owner-bridge-laws@rgb - take care Con! -Markus] Todd Zimnoch wrote: > In a teams event with an odd number of teams, you'd usually run a > three-way round robin over two rounds when putting teams together. > how do work things out when playing an odd number of rounds? Play a three-way match with half the boards (if you have an event with an ODD number of teams playing an ODD number of rounds of an ODD number of boards, you have to round then number). > If the field is scoring on a 20 VP scale, I suppose that 10 VPs > should be available in each half match. Of course. > Would you use the 20 VP scale, double the imp difference then > halve the VP award? This is reasonable and easy to do, but not 'optimal'. > Is there a special scale? Yes; some input from Mathematics! 1. From mathematics it has been derived that when you want to transform an IMP scale into another scale with the same number of VP but a different number of boards, you should multiply the boundaries between two VP areas by the square root of the ratio of the number of boards. Lost? An (hypothetical) Example: 20 boards 14-6 VP if IMP difference is 18-23 10 boards? Ratio = sqrt (20/10) = (approx.) 1.41, 18/1.41 = (ap.) 13 ; 23/1.41 = (ap.) 16, so 10 boards 14-6 VP if IMP difference is 13-16 2. When changing the number of boards and VPs with the same ratio, I would suggest that you simply add two adjacent intervals together. Hypothetical Example: 20 VP scale: 14-6 VP if IMP difference is 13-16 20 VP scale: 15-5 VP if IMP difference is 17-21 Leads to: 10 VP scale: 7-3 VP if IMP difference is 13-21 (One might adapt this system a little to get nice intervals for 5-5 and 10-0; for instance by adding to the 14-6 interval half of the 15-5 interval and half of the 13-7 interval) Using 1. and 2. one can derive a VP table for a different number of boards and VP's I did this for the teams competition at our club; we ususally play 3 rounds (10 boards) and in case there are on odd number of teams, there is one 'half size' three way match. Con Holzscherer -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 09:54:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7UNslQ17839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:54:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7UNsfH17835 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:54:42 +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 TAA17272 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA22026 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:50:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 19:50:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108302350.TAA22026@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > The most obvious example of what we find unfair about this > it to imagine having 2 half-match threeways. If a total of 40 VP would be > awarded to those 6 teams in that match, but 60 VP if they were playing > head-to-head, then the teams in the half-matches are at a disadvantage. It > seems that the VP awarded per half match should be on a 15VP scale (assuming > that the head to heads are playing 20 VP). I don't understand the problem. Each half-match needs to award half the VP's that would be available for a full match. On the 20-point ACBL scale (no "negative scores," unlike the WBF scale), the best any team can do is 20 VP (10+10), and all three teams together will score a total of 30 VP. This is an average of 10 each, the same as in the full matches. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 10:17:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V0Gpj17864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:16:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7V0GkH17860 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:16:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:12:48 -0700 Received: from 172.143.91.253 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:12:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.91.253] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:12:48 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2001 00:12:48.0666 (UTC) FILETIME=[AABE5FA0:01C131B1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Steve Willner > > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > The most obvious example of what we find unfair about this > > it to imagine having 2 half-match threeways. If a total of 40 VP would >be > > awarded to those 6 teams in that match, but 60 VP if they were playing > > head-to-head, then the teams in the half-matches are at a disadvantage. >It > > seems that the VP awarded per half match should be on a 15VP scale >(assuming > > that the head to heads are playing 20 VP). > >I don't understand the problem. Each half-match needs to award half >the VP's that would be available for a full match. On the 20-point >ACBL scale (no "negative scores," unlike the WBF scale), the best any >team can do is 20 VP (10+10), and all three teams together will score a >total of 30 VP. This is an average of 10 each, the same as in the >full matches. Sorry, this was an incomplete enumeration. I have a nasty habit of accepting things as fact when first demonstrated and getting bitten by it when it was wrong the first time. No wonder we played poorly that day. And, of course, coding this solution confirms that the check sum of total VP for the event is as expected. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ 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 Aug 31 10:47:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V0lMS17911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:47:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f7V0lGH17907 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:47:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 25993 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2001 00:43:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Rui) (217.129.46.251) by 213.228.128.56 with SMTP; 31 Aug 2001 00:43:09 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Rui M.L.Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 55 or other Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 01:42:34 +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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <200108302228.SAA21919@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > As long as the TD is satisfied that West hasn´t noticed anything (if he > > does, 16C2 takes usually care of it). And as David pointed out, > 55A "does > > not say" what he tried to interpret there. > > If it is _declarer_ who led out of turn, is the card exposed by the > defender not on lead AI or UI to each side? In other words, which is > the "offending side" for L16C purposes? > -- I would say that both are "offenders" for this purpose. Again... "ALL CARDS played in error to this trick may be withdrawn without penalty". This means that if West wants to lead we consider all cards played in error. So, whoever played a card is "sort of" an offender. You can theoretically get to a tougher case: East is on lead, North plays out of turn, South plays out of turn (South is declarer). East is entitled to the information from the NS cards. If West also plays, East is entitled to the information from the NS cards. Still not from West, and if East revokes he will have a tough time convincing the TD that he simply wanted to lead... > ===================================== -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 11:34:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V1YXh17937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:34:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7V1YSH17933 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:34:28 +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 LAA05220 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:38:19 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:20:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:24:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 31/08/2001 11:23:59 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] >Winning by 30 IMP's (25-5 VP's on the WBF scale >for 8 boards) is pretty good going in an 8-board >match. Winning by 30 IMP's in a 4-board match >is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, there >ought to be a reasonable chance to score 25-5 >(factored to 12.5-2.5, of course) even in a >half-match. But 15 IMPs over four boards is >probably too few to earn such a big win. > >David S. is right: the proper thing is to have a >VP scale for the number of boards you are >playing. Maybe the Aussie TD had one, but my >copy of the WBF scales doesn't give anything >shorter than 8. [snip] The WBF has not yet created a VP scale for 4- board matches (presumably thinking it unnecessary for such short matches). However, since such a scale is needed in Australia, here is my suggested WBF-style VP scale for 4-board matches: Imp difference VPs Nil 15-15 1-2 16-14 3-4 17-13 5-6 18-12 7-8 19-11 9-10 20-10 11-12 21-9 13-14 22-8 15-16 23-7 17-18 24-6 19-20 25-5 21-23 25-4 24-26 25-3 27-29 25-2 30-32 25-1 33+ 25-0 Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 12:57:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V2ufP22868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:56:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7V2uZH22849 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:56:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA19704 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:00:26 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:42:19 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Written Bidding Pad (from Law 41C Grammar ...) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:47:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 31/08/2001 12:46:06 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In commenting on the footnote to L40E2, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >> There is no point in reading that footnote >>in an unhelpful way, which would destroy the >>game of Duplicate Bridge. Surely we can just >>read it as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? Peter Gill replied: >David's interpretation makes sense to me. > >As the ABF (Australian Bridge Federation) has >in the past used Jerry's interpretation to >justify their rule, I am interested in whether >David's interpretation has widespread support >from the august members of BLML. I am >thinking about the possible Fall of this rule. I agree with both. If the footnote is ambiguous, the intention of the legislators can be used as a guide to interpretation. This is a standard principle used by real-life judges required to apply legislation. (As David Burn pointed out, even L6B is ambiguous, theoretically allowing one pocket of a board to hold 52 cards.) Furthermore, the ABF regulation requiring concealment of the bidding pad during the play is overwhelmingly flouted (except by a few knowledgable pedants like VM). Since this regulation is both trivial and mostly unenforced, it might as well be repealed. At the moment pedants and bridge lawyers can use their knowledge of the regulation for legal oneupmanship, disconcerting their opponents. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 17:52:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V7pTf04727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:51:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tamaris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-12.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7V7pNH04723 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:51:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.153) by tamaris.wanadoo.fr; 31 Aug 2001 09:47:22 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.249.80.62) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 31 Aug 2001 09:47:10 +0200 Message-ID: <004301c131f1$03dd5200$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55 or other Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:45:09 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with this. You can even have three cards played before west'diamond! There is just a small point to check : The L53C is clear that you must cancel the hearts and go back to a diamond lead by west, BUT if somebody noticed (East by instance) that it's LOOT, east can accept this and play a heart (L53A). If east played AFTER that, it's ok for a heart lead by north. So, the TD must do a clear approach of facts. And, in that case, what happens with west'diamond? I guess it's a penalty card (L50). Olivier. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rui M.L.Marques To: Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:03 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 55 or other > Well, we are in disagreement here. > > 53C - "... the proper lead stands and ALL CARDS played in error to this > trick may be withdrawn without penalty". In my opinion we can come to the > limit case where we have 3 played cards: Dummy´s, partner´s and declarer´s. > As long as the TD is satisfied that West hasn´t noticed anything (if he > does, 16C2 takes usually care of it). And as David pointed out, 55A "does > not say" what he tried to interpret there. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Stevenson > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 9:28 PM > > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 55 or other > > > > > > Fearghal O'Boyle writes > > >West (defender) wins the second trick. > > >South (declarer) leads from dummy (small heart) to the third > > trick and East > > >follows suit (Jack of Hearts). > > >West hasn't noticed anything irregular and leads (small Diamond) > > to the third > > >trick. > > > > > >Where do we go now? 55A or 53C or other? > > > > L55A in my view. Yes, I know it does not say it, but the best > > interpretation is that L53C only applies until partner plays a card. > > > > >Heading off for Tabiano to be bewildered and maybe get 'my ears > > washed' too. > > > > That's my prerogative. > > > > -- > > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 18:44:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V8hTH04761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:43:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7V8hMH04753 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:43:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-46.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.46]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f7V8dO018668 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:39:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B8F3F0B.4CF56184@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:38:51 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 41C Grammar Query References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D19@al194.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010829101746.020026e0@mail-g.deakin.edu.au> <004401c1318d$03fc4a20$36a4aec7@ix.netcom.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: > > Jerry Fusselman writes > >David Stevenson writes > >> Yes, the ABF have a regulation that requires it to be turned down > >> after the first three cards are played. > >> > >> Personally, I would change the regulation to allow it to remain face > >> up. I do not believe this to be against the Laws. > >> > > > >It is clearly against L40E2*: "A player is not entitled, during the auction > >and play periods, to any aids to his memory...." The context of this > >footnote focuses on written aids to memory. > > If we are to include things given us by the sponsoring organisation, > Jerry, then your reading of the footnote would ban the following: > > Boards for the cards, because they have a memory aid to bidding and > vulnerability > > Bidding boxes, because they comprise a memory aid to the bidding so far > No David, "aids to his -memory-". The dealer and vulnerability are things that a player is entitled to know (if nothing else than by calling the TD and have him read out L2). The player does not need his memmory for that, and so the board is not an aid to his memory, but to other things. Similarly a player may ask the bidding at any time until playing his first card. He does not need his memory, so the bidding on the table is not an aid to memory. That is why I'd advocate removing the bidding cards during or after the first trick, not before the lead. On a same note, a player is entitled to know the contract, so a personal score card may be kept and filled out during play, and looked at, but one is not allowed to mark the lead and then refer to it during play. > There is no point in reading that footnote in an unhelpful way, which > would destroy the game of Duplicate Bridge. Surely we can just read it > as it is meant, ie a a personal thing? > No, we can read it as it is written. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Aug 31 18:44:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7V8hV304762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:43:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7V8hNH04754 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:43:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-46.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.46]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f7V8dS018694 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:39:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B8F4053.898295FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 09:44:19 +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] Teams scoring question References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The answer is that the SO should write regulations. But the WBF should also do something : provide VP-scales for every number of boards (that includes 13 and 63 !) I have prepared those, Ton, Grattan, if you want ? Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > > You need four-board scales, you get four-board scales. It seems a > > very strange idea to run such competitions and not have the scales! > [snip] -- 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/