From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 02:13:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VG8uS01285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 02:08:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VG8oH01281 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 02:08:51 +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 f7VG4pG32292; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:04:51 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f7VG4oN24322; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:04:50 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:04:50 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question In-Reply-To: <3B8F4053.898295FC@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > 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 ? But aren't the tables intended for matches of approximately this number of boards, i.e. the table for 8 boards can be used for 7 to 9 board matches. Henk > > 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/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Sep 1 02:59:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VGxlx01312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 02:59:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7VGxfH01308 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 02:59:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7VGrk420409 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:53:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108311653.f7VGrk420409@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Written Bidding Pad (from Law 41C Grammar ...) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:53:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Aug 31, 2001 12:47:19 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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:47:19 +1000 > > 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 > TY: From my perspective, I don't think the footnote is ambiguous merely general. When dealing with the bidding and auction, the bidding pad is a written form of a review of the auction. L41.B details when that pad may be referred to. After each player contributes to the first trick, is there ambiguity over if they are allowed to consult the bidding pad? No, they are not. Therefore, it should not be allowed to be left face up. However, as a club owner and/or director of many years, I think that individual clubs should determine what they think is best for their players as a policy. However, at tournament levels, I think that the bidding pads should be concealed after the opening lead and only consulted by declarer or third hand defender if they need/want before they contribute to the first trick. Onward to the other two situations referred, again, I don't think the footnote is ambiguous. The information that the mneumonic device is providing is information the player is entitled to at that time (unlike the auction, which the player is not entitled to after contributing 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 Sat Sep 1 05:12:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VJBYa01405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 05:11:34 +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 f7VJBSH01401 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 05:11:29 +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 f7VJ7WR29436 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:07:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <018401c13250$14beb6e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3B8F4053.898295FC@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:01:56 -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: "Herman De Wael" > 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! > > > Now, what is the right imp-scale to use for IMP-Pair events, or is there one? Currently the two largest events in ACBL-land, the Cavendish Invitational and the NABC+ IMP-Pairs, use the standard imp-scale but cut it off at 17 imps maximum. Is this reasonable, or is there a better way? My feeling is that they should create a whole new imp-scale rather than truncate the standard one. Should the scale vary with the number of results? 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 Sep 1 06:57:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VKsMc01452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 06:54:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VKsHH01448 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 06:54:17 +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 QAA05024 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA04034 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:50:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:50:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108312050.QAA04034@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: con.holzscherer@philips.com > 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. This includes some assumptions that are reasonable but not necessarily true. I think the principal ones are that the IMP score distributions are Gaussian (almost certainly wrong but a reasonable approximation, given the central limit theorem) and that the goal is to have the same distribution of VP results regardless of the number of boards (reasonable but ultimately a matter of taste as to what makes the best contest). > 2. When changing the number of boards and VPs with the same > ratio, I would suggest that you simply add two adjacent > intervals together. I am afraid I don't understand this or the example at all. > From: "Marvin L. French" > Now, what is the right imp-scale to use for IMP-Pair events, or is there > one? I suppose it depends on what you want to accomplish. The usual IMP scale, truncated or not, seems reasonable to me. > Should the scale vary with the number of results? I don't see why, but maybe I'm missing something. The IMP scale converts _a single comparison_ from raw score difference to IMP's. It isn't obvious that how many of these comparisons you are later going to add up has anything to do with what conversion to use. In contrast, the comparison from _sum of IMP scores_ to VP's pretty obviously depends on how many boards were summed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 07:58:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VLwSY01480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 07:58:28 +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 f7VLwMH01476 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 07:58:23 +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 RAA12901 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA04099 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108312154.RAA04099@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 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. > From: David Stevenson > Because, Ton, we assumed you were joking. > > If you are serious, then using a Law that clearly does not apply... Why does 42B1 "clearly not apply?" (I certainly didn't assume Ton was joking.) As we know, declarer plays dummy's cards. Therefore it would seem to be _declarer_ who has "failed to follow suit" when he attempts to revoke from dummy. So why shouldn't dummy be allowed to ask? I suppose it remains technically illegal for dummy to say something like "You have to follow suit, you bozo," but "No hearts in dummy, partner?" seems fine. In practice, the two will no doubt have the same effect. An interesting aspect of this interpretation is that dummy _cannot_ call attention to a revoke from dummy if he has forfeited his rights. I am not sure this is bad. This is another item for the drafting committee, I suppose. The next Laws edition ought to clear this up one way or another: forbid dummy to call attention to an attempted revoke from dummy, allow it always, or allow it only if dummy has not forfeited his rights. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 08:05:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VM5Ru01499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:05:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7VM5LH01495 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:05:22 +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 f7VM1QR12643; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01da01c13268$5ba7dd80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Subject: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:53:43 -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 A friend asked me to get BLML opinion on this one: Swiss teams 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in the absence of an Alert) Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my friend had to lead a spade. Does anyone disagree with this decision? 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 Sep 1 08:32:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VMW1B01519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:32:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VMVtH01515 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:31:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA13854 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:28:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA04133 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200108312227.SAA04133@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Edgar made a virtue of doing so. He > thought it advantageous to keep subjects > attached to the same Law numbers from > generation to generation. I think the worst outcome would be to change only a few of the law numbers or renumber everything by one. However, if the committee thinks a drastic rewrite has merit, I don't think that would be so terrible. Someone would have to redo the index, of course, but with modern software that might not be very hard. The Bridge World suggested collecting the "normal procedures," i.e., the "laws for players" at the beginning. In outline, the arrangement might look like: ---------- Preface Definitions Laws 1-11 (but move L6E to present L81) Law 17-20 (but parts dealing with irregularites moved elsewhere) Laws 22, 25 (in part), L27A (maybe), 38, 40A, 40B, 40E2 Laws 41-44, most of 45, 46A, most of 46B (maybe all), 61, 65, 66, 68C, 68D, 69 (probably augmented with some of 71), 79 Laws 72-78 (but omitting 73F) (I think the above are all the ones the players need to know, but maybe I have missed some.) Next: Law 80-82, 12, 83-85, 90-93 (These are the powers of SO's and TD's and the ones about appeals. A few players may be interested in them.) Next: Finally come all the ones I have left out of the earlier list, starting with 13. These are the ones treating irregularities. Only TD's need to know them. Reorder in the scheme: setup and movement, auction, play, scoring, ending with L89. L86 and 88 might go into the (present) L12. ---------- No doubt other schemes are possible. For example, there is reason to put Laws 72-78 first, but I'm not sure they make sense until the laws stating proper procedures are given. Of course making an outline like the above is easy, but any real revision will need to include many rearrangements and rewordings, and that is without even facing all the questions and ambiguities we on BLML (and no doubt others) have raised. I am not at all sure the gain is worth the effort -- unless it's my gain and someone else's effort. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 08:37:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VMbHd01531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:37:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7VMbBH01527 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:37:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:51:16 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D1A@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:51:13 -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: Marvin L. French Swiss teams 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in the absence of an Alert) Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my friend had to lead a spade. Does anyone disagree with this decision? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California --------------------------- The 2C bidder promised a 4-card major. The hesitation could be consideration of a double (which would suggest to me a club lead) or of bidding a suit, which could be _any_ suit (the 2C bidder didn't promise anything about the "other" major). To say that the hesitation suggests clubs and diamonds equally, but not hearts or spades, does not seem correct to me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 08:40:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VMeas01544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:40:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7VMeUH01540 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:40:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7VMYYB26064 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:34:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108312234.f7VMYYB26064@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 18:34:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <01da01c13268$5ba7dd80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Aug 31, 2001 02:53:43 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 Hmmm...interesting. I would not think that a diamond lead was suggested, although the club lead could have been. I would have adjusted against a club lead that wasn't a natural lead. Why did the AC consider that a diamond lead was suggested any more than a heart (I would add a spade, except when you are considering a 6-bagger in hand and 4 supposedly in dummy, partner probably doesn't have a spade bid). However, partner could have length in any of the three lower ranked suits. The hesitation suggests a double for clubs more than a bid of hearts or diamonds, so I don't happen to agree that partner's hesitation suggests anything about diamonds. Was there any reason given for why the AC considered a diamond to be more suggested? Personally, I think a spade is idiotic. You hold 6, LHO (dummy) is supposed to have 4, and RHO (declarer) bid a NT and should have 2 or 3 unless there is something really weird going on. So, pard has a singleton or void. You could be solving problems for declarer. You have 2 HCP and the opponents presumably have 25-32 (hopefully with 33 and probably with 32, they would have investigated slam). So, partner has 5-13 HCP and a short spade. Wouldn't you want to try to find partner's hand? So, you would pick something other than spades. I personally think that from standard bridge logic, the spade is not a logical alternative unless you are talking straight flight C players who lead from the longest and strongest by maxim and never think about their lead. Most better players would be trying to reach partner's hand and would pick one of the other three suits. Since I believe that clubs are suggested by the hesitation, I avoid that. With 4H shown on the right, I would probably try a diamond. It seems like a reasonable lead. What am I missing here? > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:53:43 -0700 > > A friend asked me to get BLML opinion on this one: > > Swiss teams > > 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in the > absence of an Alert) > > Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 > > Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his > heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in > partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club > queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the > circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a > diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. > > The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested > just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my > friend had to lead a spade. > > Does anyone disagree with this decision? > > 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 Sat Sep 1 08:49:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VMnWf01564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:49:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VMnQH01560 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 08:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA02185; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:45:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200108312245.PAA02185@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, jawright@ucsd.edu CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2001 14:53:43 PDT." <01da01c13268$5ba7dd80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:45:29 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > A friend asked me to get BLML opinion on this one: > > Swiss teams > > 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in the > absence of an Alert) > > Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 > > Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his > heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in > partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club > queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the > circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a > diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. > > The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested > just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my > friend had to lead a spade. > > Does anyone disagree with this decision? This is a tough one. The two questions that have to be answered are: (1) Did partner's hesitation demonstrably suggest *either* minor over a major-suit lead? (2) Is a spade lead logical? I think the answer to (1) is yes. Partner might have been thinking of doubling clubs, or he might have been thinking of bidding 2D. The former is more likely, since bidding is a lot more dangerous than doubling here (the chance of running into 2Cxx making 3 isn't all that high, the chance of going for a number in 2Dx is pretty good). But partner's having a diamond suit is still a live possibility, and while the hesitation definitely suggests a club lead over a diamond lead, it also suggests a diamond lead over a spade lead. As for (2), this is harder. Even with this heart holding, there's really no way to tell from the auction whether an active or a passive defense would work better. A spade lead is safe, but has no chance to set up any tricks for your side. A diamond lead has some risk. Even so, I don't think the risk is all that great, so I don't really see any good reason to lead a spade. I don't know if a spade would meet the WBF definition that a spade "would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players [in the same class], of whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it". I guess I'd have to defer to the AC here, and hope that they had some discussion about this matter. If they just looked at the hand and quickly figured "Yep, a spade lead looks logical" because the suit has a sequence, they didn't do their job. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 09:19:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VNJBG01586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 09:19:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f7VNJ5H01582 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 09:19:06 +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 f7VNFAb15374 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:15:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:14:07 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-Reply-To: <01da01c13268$5ba7dd80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 [after Stayman and a hesitation from partner] > [snip] > Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a > diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. > > The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested > just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my > friend had to lead a spade. > > Does anyone disagree with this decision? My knee-jerk reaction was to say, "yes, I disagree. A spade will accomplish nothing, and since partner could have doubled but didn't, the AI argues against a club; so the club lead will clearly be disallowed, but an attacking diamond ought to be safe." In fact, I got halfway through a detailed post to that effect, and suddenly realized the facts I was laying out in that post really could go either way. Since others have made the case against, I'll make the case in favour (not saying I actually AGREE - just saying I can see how the AC could have reached their conclusion.) A spade is the most passive of leads, giving declarer his 3-maybe-4 spade tricks, but surely neither giving anything away nor setting anything up. At matchpoints it would be a popular choice because any other lead risks blowing an important overtrick or two. At IMPs we are trying to beat the contract, so the argument a spade is "stupid" sounds good. If I want to make an active lead I want to choose whichever minor we can set up. My clubs are better than my diamonds -> better chance of setting them up; partner could easily have doubled 2C for the lead but didn't. Now, what does THAT tell us? Again - my first reaction was "there's AI that partner could have asked for a club lead but didn't, and UI that partner has 'something' - so leading a club would be taking advantage of UI." On reflection I am not so sure. If partner has KJxxx/AJxxx and an outside entry he would have had no trouble at all doubling. And to beat the contract on the CQ lead partner needs at least K9xxx. (or KJxx and two sure side tricks, or some such.) In short - since partner DIDN'T double, and with most establishable club holding he would have had an EASY double -- he probably wasn't agonizing over doubling. On the other hand, partner could easily have KQTxx diamonds and an outside entry, or rattier diamonds and 1 1/2 entries, and be agonizing over whether the great risk of entering a strong auction was outweighed by the desire to get partner off to the right lead. There are many hands that want diamond leads, wish they could take action, but can't. There's a lot more to think about deciding whether to bid 2D than to double 2C. So: it wouldn't surprise me for a thoughtful appeals committee to conclude that the hesitation demonstrably suggests leading a diamond. The dilemma I personally have is -- if the spade and heart leads are already ruled out by AI, and the club and diamond leads are both suggested by UI -- I don't seem to have a case to adjust against *either one*. The original case only discussed an AC. It didn't say if a director was even called or what the director ruled at the table. At the table, giving benefit of the doubt to the NOS, I would rule 3NT making and advise them of their right to appeal (hoping they would, in fact, so that the time could be taken to probe this stuff I would never have had time to think of at the table.) If I were sitting on the appeals committee, I'd have a very difficult time deciding whether to let down 1 stand or let 3NT make. My largest qualm about letting 3NT make is that by doing so I seem to be admitting I'd rule against this player no matter WHAT he led, and I am quite disturbed by that notion. In fact it may well be right to rule against players no matter what they lead in cases like this - simply because their table feel will let them read the right lead in a way the appeals committee can't pin down in words after the fact. But it leaves me uneasy doing so. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 09:34:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VNYeM01608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 09:34:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f7VNYYH01604 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 09:34:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f7VNSdb26313 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:28:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200108312328.f7VNSdb26313@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:28:39 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200108312245.PAA02185@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Aug 31, 2001 03:45:29 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 Why does the hesitation suggest a diamond lead over a major lead? Partner could have a heart bid just as easily as a diamond bid. The only bid that you can intuit that partner does not have is a spade bid. A double for a club lead is suggested by the hesitation but after that, there is no reason that the hesitation suggests a diamond bid over a heart bid (or a spade bid if it wasn't logically impossible for partner to have a spade bid unless partner was planning on psyching). Is a spade lead logical? In my mind, not. Partner has 6-13 HCP and single or void of spades. In addition to not being constructive a spade lead runs the risk of starting an early squeeze on partner's hand. I don't believe that a spade is a logical alternative if you allow opening leader to be able to use basic bridge logic. I don't see a case for diamonds being suggested more than hearts and hence, to my mind, either red suit should be a logical alternative for opening leader to make. -Ted. > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:45:29 -0700 > From: Adam Beneschan > > This is a tough one. > > The two questions that have to be answered are: (1) Did partner's > hesitation demonstrably suggest *either* minor over a major-suit lead? > (2) Is a spade lead logical? > > I think the answer to (1) is yes. Partner might have been thinking of > doubling clubs, or he might have been thinking of bidding 2D. The > former is more likely, since bidding is a lot more dangerous than > doubling here (the chance of running into 2Cxx making 3 isn't all that > high, the chance of going for a number in 2Dx is pretty good). But > partner's having a diamond suit is still a live possibility, and while > the hesitation definitely suggests a club lead over a diamond lead, it > also suggests a diamond lead over a spade lead. > > As for (2), this is harder. Even with this heart holding, there's > really no way to tell from the auction whether an active or a passive > defense would work better. A spade lead is safe, but has no chance to > set up any tricks for your side. A diamond lead has some risk. Even > so, I don't think the risk is all that great, so I don't really see > any good reason to lead a spade. I don't know if a spade would meet > the WBF definition that a spade "would be given serious consideration > by a significant proportion of such players [in the same class], of > whom it is reasonable to think some might adopt it". I guess I'd have > to defer to the AC here, and hope that they had some discussion about > this matter. If they just looked at the hand and quickly figured > "Yep, a spade lead looks logical" because the suit has a sequence, > they didn't do their job. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 10:01:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8101L601630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:01:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f8101GH01626 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:01:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA03617; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:57:19 -0700 Message-Id: <200108312357.QAA03617@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2001 15:14:07 -0800." Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:57:18 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > If I were sitting on the appeals committee, I'd have a very difficult time > deciding whether to let down 1 stand or let 3NT make. My largest qualm > about letting 3NT make is that by doing so I seem to be admitting I'd rule > against this player no matter WHAT he led, and I am quite disturbed by > that notion. In fact it may well be right to rule against players no > matter what they lead in cases like this - simply because their table feel > will let them read the right lead in a way the appeals committee can't pin > down in words after the fact. But it leaves me uneasy doing so. I don't think it's legal to do so, because the relationship of "demonstrably suggested over" is, mathematically, a partial ordering; and when a partial ordering is defined for a finite set (such as the set of cards in one's hand), there must be at least one minimal element of the set, which by definition is not "demonstrably suggested over" anything and thus cannot be illegal by Law 16A. Hopefully this will be clear to everyone. :) -- Adam (who used to be able to recite Zorn's Lemma but has fortunately forgotten it) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 10:07:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f81071201642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:07:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f8106tH01638 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 10:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA03788; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:02:56 -0700 Message-Id: <200109010002.RAA03788@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Ted Ying cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List), adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2001 19:28:39 EDT." <200108312328.f7VNSdb26313@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:02:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > Why does the hesitation suggest a diamond lead over a major lead? > Partner could have a heart bid just as easily as a diamond bid. Only if responder decided to bid like that with a singleton or void in hearts. It just isn't nearly as likely as a diamond bid. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 1 11:56:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f811u7s07157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:56:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f811u0H07153 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:56:01 +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 BAA13219 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 01:52:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:28:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" 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 In article , David Stevenson 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. > Definitely "at your own risk". Blatant double shot. -- 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 Sep 1 14:37:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f814Zqg07253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:35:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f814ZlH07249 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 14:35:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:31:47 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.212] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D1A@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:26:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2001 04:31:47.0381 (UTC) FILETIME=[02F3DE50:01C1329F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John Nichols To: Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 5:51 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman | | | -----Original Message----- | From: Marvin L. French | | Swiss teams | | 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in | the | absence of an Alert) | | Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 | The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested | just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, | my | friend had to lead a spade. | | Does anyone disagree with this decision? | | Marv | Marvin L. French | San Diego, California | | --------------------------- | | The 2C bidder promised a 4-card major. | | The hesitation could be consideration of a double (which would suggest to me | a club lead) or of bidding a suit, which could be _any_ suit (the 2C bidder | didn't promise anything about the "other" major). | | To say that the hesitation suggests clubs and diamonds equally, but not | hearts or spades, does not seem correct to me. Here are a couple of points: 1. The huddle strongly suggested values. I would think that huddle and pass is most likely to suggest there is a strong likelihood of setting a NT game and therefore it is not worth it to risk going down. Yet in spite of the warning responder bid strongly anyway. When he bid 3N he said come and get me if you can. If a suit is suggested it should be clubs unless there are system considerations that would make a call distasteful. 2. As an extension of [1] the huddle suggests values much more than suits. To say that there be an adjustment merely because there is a defense that allows the contract to make resembles a witch hunt. 3. I don't like a bad result any more than the next guy, but this one is not something I would think of pursuing. I'm wondering why redress was asked for in the first place. 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 Sep 1 16:18:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f816IJP07501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:18:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f816IEH07497 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:18:14 +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 f816EIR04251 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <023801c132ad$2ba13240$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D1A@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:11:11 -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: "John Nichols" > > > From: Marvin L. French > > Swiss teams > > 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in > the > absence of an Alert) > > Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 > > Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his > heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in > partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club > queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the > circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he > led a > diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. > > The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested > just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, > my friend had to lead a spade. > > Does anyone disagree with this decision? > > --------------------------- > > The 2C bidder promised a 4-card major. > > The hesitation could be consideration of a double (which would suggest to me > a club lead) or of bidding a suit, which could be _any_ suit (the 2C bidder > didn't promise anything about the "other" major). Yes, he could have had a heart suit, and hearts had not yet been bid. Seems unlikely. > > To say that the hesitation suggests clubs and diamonds equally, but not > hearts or spades, does not seem correct to me. The AC would say that the hesitator was pretty obviously thinking either of doubling 2C or of bidding 2D, giving my friend a 50-50 shot at finding the right action, when a spade lead is not illogical. 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 Sep 1 20:46:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f81Ajbn21395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:45:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f81AjWH21391 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:45:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by GARFIELD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:39:25 +0100 Message-ID: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2F4A@GARFIELD> From: anna@ecats.co.uk To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Case for AC Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:39:23 +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 Re-doing the index is no problem at all with the software available. It is simply a matter of marking up the words needing to be indexed (using the search facility to make sure you get all instances) and hitting the generate index button. The table of contents is generated using style sheets. Given a re-write, basically all that is needed is for someone to decide what words should be indexed. Then (for me) it is about an hour's work. I am very happy to undertake formatting for hard copy and HTMLing for the web if that is what is wanted. anna -----Original Message----- From: Steve Willner [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:28 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Case for AC > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Edgar made a virtue of doing so. He > thought it advantageous to keep subjects > attached to the same Law numbers from > generation to generation. I think the worst outcome would be to change only a few of the law numbers or renumber everything by one. However, if the committee thinks a drastic rewrite has merit, I don't think that would be so terrible. Someone would have to redo the index, of course, but with modern software that might not be very hard. The Bridge World suggested collecting the "normal procedures," i.e., the "laws for players" at the beginning. In outline, the arrangement might look like: ---------- Preface Definitions Laws 1-11 (but move L6E to present L81) Law 17-20 (but parts dealing with irregularites moved elsewhere) Laws 22, 25 (in part), L27A (maybe), 38, 40A, 40B, 40E2 Laws 41-44, most of 45, 46A, most of 46B (maybe all), 61, 65, 66, 68C, 68D, 69 (probably augmented with some of 71), 79 Laws 72-78 (but omitting 73F) (I think the above are all the ones the players need to know, but maybe I have missed some.) Next: Law 80-82, 12, 83-85, 90-93 (These are the powers of SO's and TD's and the ones about appeals. A few players may be interested in them.) Next: Finally come all the ones I have left out of the earlier list, starting with 13. These are the ones treating irregularities. Only TD's need to know them. Reorder in the scheme: setup and movement, auction, play, scoring, ending with L89. L86 and 88 might go into the (present) L12. ---------- No doubt other schemes are possible. For example, there is reason to put Laws 72-78 first, but I'm not sure they make sense until the laws stating proper procedures are given. Of course making an outline like the above is easy, but any real revision will need to include many rearrangements and rewordings, and that is without even facing all the questions and ambiguities we on BLML (and no doubt others) have raised. I am not at all sure the gain is worth the effort -- unless it's my gain and someone else's effort. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 2 00:47:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f81EkV122608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:46:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsfep15-int.chello.nl (amsfep15-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f81EkOH22586 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:46:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsfep15-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20010901143928.SWQD2849.amsfep15-int.chello.nl@witz> for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:39:28 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010901164252.00eeb088@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 16:42:52 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: [BLML] ff-appeal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk hi all, here an appeal question from the fifth friday tournament in amsterdam. 12 w/ns Q3 J32 A85432 T7 T94 K87 KQT8 A965 J976 KQT 32 K65 AJ652 74 - AQJ984 the bidding W N E S p p 1 NT 2c* p** 2H p 2S all pass * alert ** what is 2c??? the question First time partnership low level. On the card was 2c explained as multi-landy and the 2c was indeed explained as majors. It was meant by south as real clubs (he doesnt play this convention. Question is if the result (s2 +3) should stand or converted to either 2h or a high level h contract. regards, anton Anton Witzen. Tel: 020 7763175 2e Kostverlorenkade 114-1 1053 SB Amsterdam ICQ 7835770 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 2 08:50:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f81MnSZ29325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Sep 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 pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f81MnLH29321 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 08:49:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-137.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.137]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f81MjM006867 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:45:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <029901c13338$5f2aa520$623d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <01da01c13268$5ba7dd80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:49:27 +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 "Marvin L. French" wrote: > A friend asked me to get BLML opinion on this one: > > Swiss teams > > 1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in the > absence of an Alert) > > Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 > > Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his > heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in > partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club > queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the > circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a > diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. > > The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested > just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my > friend had to lead a spade. > > Does anyone disagree with this decision? The AC did show a lack of knowledge of both IMP bridge and the law. The hesitation does not demonstrably suggest leading a diamond. It is the S+H length in advancer's hand which suggests leading a diamond or a club. Advancer knows from AI that partner has a five card minor (actually a six card minor is likely, because partner can hardly have more than one spade and two hearts). A hopeless passive S lead won't help defeat 3NT. 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 Sep 2 11:05:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f82150p05607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:05:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8214tH05603 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:04:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20010902010053.PTNM13643.femail3.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b>; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 18:00:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010901210029.00876820@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: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 21:00:29 -0400 To: Anton Witzen , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] ff-appeal In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010901164252.00eeb088@pop3.norton.antivirus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:42 PM 9/1/01 +0200, Anton Witzen wrote: >hi all, >here an appeal question from the fifth friday tournament in amsterdam. >12 w/ns > > Q3 > J32 > A85432 > T7 > >T94 K87 >KQT8 A965 >J976 KQT >32 K65 > > AJ652 > 74 > - > AQJ984 > >the bidding >W N E S >p p 1 NT 2c* >p** 2H p 2S >all pass >* alert >** what is 2c??? >the question >First time partnership low level. On the card was 2c explained as multi-landy >and the 2c was indeed explained as majors. It was meant by south as real >clubs (he doesnt play this convention. > >Question is if the result (s2 +3) should stand or converted to either 2h or >a high level h contract. South has unauthorized information, but passing 2H with this hand is not a logical alternative, and I don't think raising to 3H is either. South apparently bid 2C with the intenstion of bidding 2S if given a later chance, and his small doubleton in partner's suit is not a reason to ignore this. (If North had continued with 3H, South would then have to raise to four, but the actual North hand properly passed 2S.) Therefore, the result should stand. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 3 01:46:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f82FjFL16893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 01:45:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f82Fj9H16889 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 01:45:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-180.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.180]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ADC154395 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 16:41:08 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 16:35:25 +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 V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200108302248.SAA21953@cfa183.harvard.edu> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner (Thu 30 Aug 2001 23:49) writes: > That's true if all the matches are the same length. Our problem, > though, was how to score half-matches. In this part of the world we have an EBU movement 'bible' (Manning), which in its Swiss Teams section gives VP scales for 7-9 board matches and corresponding 'half scales' for what are known here as 'short triangles'. 'Long triangles' extend over two rounds and the normal VP scale applies to each match. In a 'short triangle' the three teams score their two half matches separately on a special 'half VP scale'. Corrected for the 1995 VP Scale changes (Manning was published in 1992) the scales are: Full match of 7, 8 or 9 boards: IMP difference 0 (10-10); 1-2 (11-9); 3-4 (12-8); 5-6 (13-7); 7-9 (14-6); 10-12 (15-5); 13-16 (16-4); 17-20 (17-3); 21-24 (18-2); 25-29 (19-1) and 30 or more (20-0). Short triangle half match of 3 boards: IMP difference 0 (5-5); 1-2 (6-4); 3-4 (7-3); 5-7 (8-2); 8-11 (9-1) and 12 or more (10-0) Short triangle half match of 4 boards: IMP difference 0 (5-5); 1-2 (6-4); 3-5 (7-3); 6-9 (8-2); 10-13 (9-1) and 14 or more (10-0) On the thorny question of long v short triangles... Long triangles are popular with organisers because pairing problems are less and only occur every other round and because they are less likely to go wrong and therefore need less attention. IMO however long triangles are unsatisfactory in the following respects: (1) An inexperienced team may draw two strong teams in the random draw for a long triangle in rounds 1 & 2 - if they had played one of these teams normally in round 1 and lost badly, they would have expected gentler opposition in round 2. (2) In a recent club Swiss Teams with 14 teams and six rounds, our team's performance in rounds 1 to 4 was sufficiently uninspiring that we found ourselves in the long triangle for rounds 5 & 6. A good double win now enabled us to win the tournament! If we had done well in a round 5 short triangle, at least one of the leaders would have had the chance to have a go at us in round 6. (3) You cannot play long triangles over a lunch or tea break - unless you are prepared to isolate players involved in the triangle!. Players seem to hate triangles of any sort. Although short triangles are slightly messier, they prefer them because at least they have the chance of getting back out of the triangle after one round. For all of these reasons, I always take the trouble to play short triangles when running a Swiss, even with a small number of teams. Teams have to accept that they may be in the triangle twice and that they may meet a particular team over 1½ matches. 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 Sep 3 08:02:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f82M22523254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 08:02:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f82M1uH23250 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 08:01:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-237.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.237]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 995B462F19 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:57:56 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: FW: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:52:13 +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 > (2) In a recent club Swiss Teams with 14 teams and six rounds, ... Sorry ..., ... with '15 teams' and six rounds, ... 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 Sep 3 17:12:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f837BEj29344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:11:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep04-svc.swip.net (fep04.swip.net [130.244.199.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f837B8H29340 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([212.151.26.100]) by fep04-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20010903070702.LQKY6557.fep04-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 09:07:02 +0200 Message-ID: <000501c13445$76405580$641a97d4@swipnet.se> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] triangles Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 08:55:46 +0200 Organization: SBF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, If you win two short triangles by 12 imps you score 20-0, but if you win a long triangle by 24 imps you score 18-2. I do the scoring differently. In a short triangle team 1 beats team 2 by 5 imps, team 2 beats team 3 by 8 imps and team 1 beats team 3 by 15 imps, then teams score VP from this formula: team 1 wins by 20 imp, team 2 wins by 3 imps and team 3 loses by 23 imps. Hans-Olof Hallén, Swedish TD -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 3 17:28:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f837S3O29582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:28:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f837RvH29578 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:27:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f837Ltw09141 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 03:21:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200109030721.f837Ltw09141@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 03:21:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200109010002.RAA03788@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Aug 31, 2001 05:02:56 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: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:02:56 -0700 > From: Adam Beneschan > > Ted Ying wrote: > > > Why does the hesitation suggest a diamond lead over a major lead? > > Partner could have a heart bid just as easily as a diamond bid. > > Only if responder decided to bid like that with a singleton or void in > hearts. It just isn't nearly as likely as a diamond bid. > TY: Obviously, I'm missing something. Opening leader's hand is 6-3-2-2. LHO has shown 4S but not 4H. RHO has shown an opening NT with 4H. So, tell me again, why partner cannot have a 5-card suit? What would LHO bid with a 4-1-4-4 shape and RHO with a 3-4-4-2 shape? And wouldn't this leave partner with a 5 card heart suit? In fact, wouldn't it leave partner with a 0-5-3-5 shape? Again, I propose that partner's hesitation suggests a club suit, but doesn't not put any suggestion of the other three suits. Opening leader can intuit and should be able to intuit from AI (namely that LHO shows 4S, RHO has 2+ spades, and he holds 6 spades) that partner is short of spades. Opening leader can intuit from AI (that opponents hold 25-32 HCP and he holds 2) that partner holds values, specifically 6-13 HCP. This information can be gleaned from AI. Partner can hold up to 5H, and a 6-card minor. I think the only proscription is against a club. To put a proscription against diamonds, I think we're talking a bit of going overboard by the law nazis. -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 Mon Sep 3 18:47:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f838lBn00149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:47:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f838l6H00145 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:47:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:43:34 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5F2@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:43:32 +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 Marvin L. French wrote: >A friend asked me to get BLML opinion on this one: > >Swiss teams > >1NT-P-2C-P (after a marked hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades in the >absence of an Alert) > >Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 > >Feeling that he must attack with imp scoring, especially considering his >heart holding, and the only way to do that was to set up something in >partner's hand, my friend (a very good player) wanted to lead the club >queen. He did not consider a spade lead to be logical under the >circumstances. Since the hesitation seemed to suggest a club lead, he led a >diamond, defeating the hand. A club or spade lead would not have worked. > >The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond lead was suggested >just as much as a club lead. Since a spade lead is logical, they said, my >friend had to lead a spade. > >Does anyone disagree with this decision? > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California A spade lead logical??? You know that partner has at most one spade. You are probably on lead for the last time. What good can a spade lead do? With such a hand it is usually better to try to find partner. Hearts can also be dismissed, since declarer bid them. Remains clubs and diamonds. Partner would have doubled 2C if he had a good club suit (like AKJxx - anything else is hardly possible). So diamonds would be a logical lead to me. The hesitation could suggest a hand which is almost good enough to double (like KJ9xx or something), so if anything at all is suggested, it is a club lead. So yes, I disagree with this decision. It seems to me to be of the type: "If it hesitates, shoot it!" -- 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 Mon Sep 3 21:16:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83BF7h00274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:15:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83BF0H00270 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:15:01 +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 NAA22216; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:10:03 +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 NAA27785; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:10:47 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <007d01c13469$a67ced20$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= , "bridge-laws" References: <000501c13445$76405580$641a97d4@swipnet.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] triangles Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:14:50 +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: Hans-Olof Hallén > If you win two short triangles by 12 imps you score 20-0, but if you win a > long triangle by 24 imps you score 18-2. AG : this is not absurd at all. You might win a long triangle (how many deals ?) by 24 IMPs in several ways. Separate the deals in two equal subsets. You may score +24 by scoring +12 in both halves, or +24 and 0, or +30 and -6 etc. If the halves represent separate matches, only in the 1st case will you score 20-0. In the other two cases you will score 15 and 13 (or is it 12 ?) respectively. This is a specific case of the general principle -transcribed in the scales- that it is more difficult (thus, more deserving to the winner) to register a 2n point differential on 2k deals than a n point differential on k deals. This has something to do with Kolmogorov's Law of Great 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 Sep 3 21:22:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83BMNE00286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:22:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f83BMDH00282 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:22:13 +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 NAA23087; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:17:06 +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 NAA02362; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:17:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00b201c1346a$a33ac500$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200108312245.PAA02185@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:21:54 +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 ----- > Marvin French wrote: > > > A friend asked me to get BLML opinion on this one: > I think the answer to (1) is yes. Partner might have been thinking of > doubling clubs, or he might have been thinking of bidding 2D. The > former is more likely, since bidding is a lot more dangerous than > doubling here (the chance of running into 2Cxx making 3 isn't all that > high, the chance of going for a number in 2Dx is pretty good). AG : this suggests a non-club lead ! Because if the case is close, you would probably double 2C with a club suit, but not overcall, for the reasons Adam mentioned. Thus, the hesitation-then-pass could be considered as suggesting something else than clubs. However, this is marginal, and none of the suits was specifically suggested above the others. There is no reason at all to say diamonds were suggested. 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 Sep 3 21:29:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83BSqO00304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:28:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f83BSiH00300 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:28:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA28490; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:21:17 +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 NAA06754; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:24:34 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <00c101c1346b$939efde0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200108312357.QAA03617@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:28:38 +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 ----- > -- Adam > > (who used to be able to recite Zorn's Lemma but has fortunately > forgotten it) Every inductive set (ie ordered set whose chains are all maximized) possesses a maximal element. This is equivalent (in a logical sense) to Zermelo's axiom of choice, which, I suppose, is what Adam was referring to. Well, that's two mails I posted today, and I managed to mention Kolmogorov and Zermelo. Could it be that bridge has mathematical aspects, or is my mind so deeply conditioned ? (non-exclusive or) A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 01:18:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83FHXn05183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 01:17:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f83FHQH05167 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 01:17:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-143.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.143]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B551F1D52C5 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 16:13:24 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 16:07:40 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <001b01c13443$f1394500$641a97d4@swipnet.se> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hans-Olof Hallén (Mon 03 Sep 2001 07:45) writes: > Hi, > If you win two short triangles by 12 imps you score 20-0, but if > you win one by 24 you score 18-2. This is why we in Sweden > score differently. team 1 beats team 2 by 5 imps, team 2 > beats team 3 by 8 imps and team 1 beats team 3 by 13 imps. > Then the VP scale is used from team 1 winning by 18 imps, > team 2 winning by 3 and team 3 losing by 21. Is that fair? I thought we'd been here before in this string. In a short triangle, strong teams 1 & 2 each beat team 3 by 30 IMPs and draw 0 IMPs with each other. Your method gives 20 VPs to teams 1 & 2, instead of 15VPs. No, this is neither fair nor reasonable. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 03:06:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83H5Tg18853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 03:05:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83H5NH18849 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 03:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f83H1Nj08430 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007301c13499$f9f04bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 09:59:05 -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 Law 69 says that acquiescence in an opponent's claim can be withdrawn by a contestant, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved" -- new wording issued by the WBFLC We know pretty well what the footnote means for an expert contestant, but what lesser play can be assumed for the lesser lights? Far-out example: (make up your own if you don't like this one) Qxx KJ9 Axx 10xx West is on lead, and declarer, South, claims one tricks if West has thejack, otherwise no tricks. E/W acquiesce in the claim, giving declarer one trick, but later realize that leading the jack would result in the taking of three tricks, and want to withdraw the acquiescence. If West is an expert, no problem, right? Leading anything but the jack would be irrational, not merely careless or inferior, so E/W get three tricks. But how do you determine that a less-experienced West would not lead the jack? I would prefer that all E/W pairs be treated the same (i.e., two tricks), it being too difficult to judge players' abilities, and wish that "for the class of player involved" could be eliminated from the footnote. It appears nowhere else in the Laws, and smacks of favoritism toward experts. I had always believed that the footnote was there merely to point out that even experts can do things that are careless or inferior, but not irrational. It seems unlikely that its additional purpose was to point out that the inexperienced are not up to making an expert play. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 03:54:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83HsHD24042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 03:54:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin5.bigpond.com (juicer02.bigpond.com [139.134.6.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83HsCH24021 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 03:54:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.56]) by mailin5.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GJ3LTS00.58D for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 03:56:16 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-113.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.113]) by mail3.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9i 5/2042787); 04 Sep 2001 03:50:45 Message-ID: <005b01c134a0$03d09ea0$71df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 03:43:59 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: >Marvin L. French wrote: >> Swiss teams >> 1NT-P-2C-P (hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades >> Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 >> The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond >>lead was suggested just as much as a club lead. > >I'm wondering why redress was asked for in the first place. Asking for redress seems reasonable to me. An argument which the NOs could use is that if the hesitator had clubs, given that he seems to have values, he most likely would have doubled 2C anyway once he had hesitated. I think the situation is complex, and difficult to analyse clearly. Without having strong feelings either way, I don't disagree with the AC. A relevant but omitted factor is whether the NOs were vulnerable. If vul (especially if vul agains not vul), the case that the hesitation suggests diamonds is stronger, as it may be the vulnerability that eventually deterred the hesitator from bidding 2D. Those condemn the spade lead as unthinkable seem to forget that at bridge there is such a thing as a passive lead. When the lead of any other suit costs a trick or resolves a guess for declarer, the spade lead gains. The spade lead occasionally may even gain when partner has a singleton honour, e.g. on the layout, KJxx 10987xx x Ax under some circumstances, declarer might insert the jack on a spade lead. Without a spade lead, the chances of him making only two tricks from spades are more remote. Similarly, QJxx in dummy opposite Ax is a potential gain. Most certainly, a very complicated hand to analyse IMO. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 05:49:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83Jmt926536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 05:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83JmnH26532 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 05:48:50 +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 PAA29082 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA10087 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 15:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200109031944.PAA10087@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > Most certainly, a very complicated hand to analyse IMO. I agree with this. And this very fact makes it hard to "demonstrate," as L16 requires, that the diamond lead was "suggested over another." FWIW, I think a spade lead is a LA in North America but not anywhere else in the world. (Do you really believe even as many as 10% of players would lead a spade, let alone the 25% required in most jurisdictions?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 07:26:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83LPr014577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 07:25:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin2.email.bigpond.com (juicer14.bigpond.com [139.134.6.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83LPmH14573 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 07:25:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.52]) by mailin2.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GJ3VMG00.6RO for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 07:27:52 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-113.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.113]) by mail5.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9i 9/1849992); 04 Sep 2001 07:22:21 Message-ID: <017901c134bd$931b7cc0$71df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 07:15:35 +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 Steve Wilner wrote: >FWIW, I think a spade lead is a LA in North America but >not anywhere else in the world. (Do you really believe >even as many as 10% of players would lead a spade, >let alone the 25% required in most jurisdictions?) Assuming no hesitation: At a club duplicate in Sydney, I'd estimate about 50% would lead a spade. At the top 20 tables of a 140 table section of a Swiss Teams National Championship in Australia, I'd expect about 10% to lead a spade. At the bottom 20 tables of the same National event, I'd expect about 60% spade leads. On MSC as Problem H in The BW magazine, I think 1 of the 31 panelists (3%) might consider a spade lead. Thus at low levels of competition, on my estimation a spade lead is a LA, but at the highest levels it might not be. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 08:30:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83MUEj14607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:30:14 +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 f83MUAH14603 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:30:10 +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 IAA06138 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:34:01 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:13:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams scoring question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:20:38 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/09/2001 08:19:28 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows (Brambledown) asserted: [big snip] >You cannot play long triangles over a lunch >or tea break - unless you are prepared to >isolate players involved in the triangle!. [big snip] This logistical problem is routinely solved by the TD in Canberra region Swiss Teams. He simply runs lunch-spanning long triangles in two complete half-match stanzas, with the three teams involved permitted a half-time scoreup before the meal. 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 Sep 4 08:46:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83MkGm14624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:46:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83MkAH14620 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:46:11 +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 SAA02931 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10364 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 18:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200109032242.SAA10364@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here are a few statistics and comments about appeals at the recent EBL tournament. All the appeals are online at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm There were 40 "regular" appeals and one "tournament committee" meeting to address a violation of system regulations. (We discussed the latter a month or two ago.) Over half the appeals (23) dealt with misinformation. My overwhelming impression was that it was very hard to get redress for MI. Only two cases were given full redress, partial redress (L12C3) was given in five, and no redress whatever was given in sixteen. In a few of the latter, the decision was because the explanation given was deemed to be correct, but many had comments along the lines of "should have asked", "need to protect themselves," etc. We should avoid overgeneralizing: this was a very high-level tournament, played behind screens, and we don't know anything about TD decisions that were not appealed. Nevertheless, there were some cases where on the facts presented, I probably would have given redress but the AC gave none, and there were others where I would have used L12C2 to give full redress rather than partial. (Bear in mind that I'm from North America, where L12C3 is not used; possibly my bias is showing.) On the issue of frivolous appeals, the AC kept the deposit in 10 cases and commented in five more that they considered keeping it (or words to that effect). There were presumably a few more where keeping the deposit might have been considered but was not mentioned in the writeup. (I personally would put five in that category.) So something approaching half the appeals had dubious merit. Against that, of course, we don't know how many TD decisions might have merited an appeal but none was filed. (Does anyone know how many table-sessions were played at the tournament? I'm curious what the appeals ratio was.) Of the 16 "no-redress MI" cases, five deposits were kept. Only one more of these case was in the "considered keeping" category. That means the no-redress MI cases were on average just as meritorious as other categories of appeal. In cases of non-consequent damage, the practice was to let the table result stand for the NOS. (We have discussed alternatives on BLML.) Individual cases of interest: 30: The AC ruled non-consequent damage, but after the infraction (6H bid by EW), the best NS could have done was +300 (6Hx-2). If the infraction had not occurred, they would have scored +450 (5S=). The AC let the table result (-100, 6Sx-1) stand for NS. That seems harsh. 41: In a disputed-claim case, the AC stated a general principle that if declarer believes his hand to be high, trumps are played last. While that seems quite reasonable to me, this is the first time I have seen it stated. There was one case where the AC overruled the TD on a point of law. It was a claim case and may have been 41, but I regret that I didn't write down the number. The AC was correct in my opinion: L12C3 cannot be used for a disputed claim because no adjusted score is being assigned. I hope these comments are of some interest, and of course I welcome additions or corrections. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 09:09:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f83N7uN14644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f83N7oH14640 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:07:51 +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 TAA03473 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:03:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA12074; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:03:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200109032303.TAA12074@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Law 69 says that acquiescence in an opponent's claim can be >withdrawn by a contestant, but only if he has acquiesced in >the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the >loss of a trick that could not be lost by any >normal* play of the remaining cards. > >*..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, >but not irrational, for the class of player involved" -- new >wording issued by the WBFLC > >We know pretty well what the footnote means for an expert >contestant, but what lesser play can be assumed for the lesser >lights? > >Far-out example: (make up your own if you don't like this one) > > Qxx > >KJ9 Axx > > 10xx > >West is on lead, and declarer, South, claims one tricks if West has >thejack, otherwise no tricks. E/W acquiesce in the claim, giving >declarer one trick, but later realize that leading the jack would >result in the taking of three tricks, and want to withdraw the >acquiescence. > >If West is an expert, no problem, right? Leading anything but the >jack would be irrational, not merely careless or inferior, so E/W >get three tricks. > >But how do you determine that a less-experienced West would not lead >the jack? > >I would prefer that all E/W pairs be treated the same (i.e., two >tricks), it being too difficult to judge players' abilities, and >wish that "for the class of player involved" could be eliminated >from the footnote. It appears nowhere else in the Laws, and smacks >of favoritism toward experts. > >I had always believed that the footnote was there merely to point >out that even experts can do things that are careless or inferior, >but not irrational. It seems unlikely that its additional purpose >was to point out that the inexperienced are not up to making an >expert play. The problem with this example, and any example, is that any "expert" who aquiesced to start with would be a member of the class of players who could get the problem wrong. In this case, if a player failed to see the play of the jack at the point of a claim, there is no reason to give it to him now, be it Joe club expert or Soloway himself. Tony (aka ac342) ps. I suspect that L69 and the footnote are there for the very obvious "Hey, wait a sec! *I* had the high trump!" and "Uhmm, pard, how did he get rid of his losing club?" "DIRECTER!!" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 14:24:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f844Nll22381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:23:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f844NgH22377 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:23:42 +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 f844Jej27735 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d201c134f8$bb7f4b20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200109032303.TAA12074@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:10:26 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "A. L. Edwards" > > The problem with this example, and any example, is that > any "expert" who aquiesced to start with would be a member of the > class of players who could get the problem wrong. In this case, > if a player failed to see the play of the jack at the point of a claim, > there is no reason to give it to him now, be it Joe club expert or Soloway > himself. > Tony (aka ac342) > > ps. I suspect that L69 and the footnote are there for the very > obvious "Hey, wait a sec! *I* had the high trump!" and > "Uhmm, pard, how did he get rid of his losing club?" "DIRECTER!!" Ah, very good, exactly my opinion. Can we agree, then that the footnote should not apply to L69? I don't see how it adds anything to L69's words: "could not be lost by any normal line of play." If you do, please give an example. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 4 14:54:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f844rtx24173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f844roH24169 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:53:51 +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 f844nnj23276 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00dc01c134fc$f1558080$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Birmingham NABC Appeals Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 21:47:38 -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 Steve's interesting info regarding the Tenerife appeals prompted me to look at the Birmingham NABC appeals. The casebook contains 27 appeals, of which: 9 resulted in appeal without merit warnings, 2 undeserved in my opinion. 8 were deserving of an AWMW (not just my opinion), but received none. Most of these (15 by my count, more than half the appeals) were a real waste of everyone's time, with the appellants having zero chance of success from the start. Each appeal has to be screened, scheduled, heard by 3 or 5 AC members, written up by the scribe, massaged into good form by Linda, sent to a dozen Expert Panelists for their comments, and put into the casebook for publication along with Rich Colker's comments on the comments (plus his own).. It's too bad the screening process can't be more effective. These cases provide little guidance for applying the Laws, which is perhaps the main purpose of 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 Tue Sep 4 20:06:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84A58606576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:05:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84A51H06572 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 20:05:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA26434; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:00:02 +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 MAA17943; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:00:48 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <004c01c13529$0a7733c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <007301c13499$f9f04bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:04:51 +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 > Law 69 says that acquiescence in an opponent's claim can be > withdrawn by a contestant, but only if he has acquiesced in > the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the > loss of a trick that could not be lost by any > normal* play of the remaining cards. > *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, > but not irrational, for the class of player involved" -- new > wording issued by the WBFLC > > Qxx > > KJ9 Axx > > 10xx > > West is on lead, and declarer, South, claims one tricks if West has > thejack, otherwise no tricks. E/W acquiesce in the claim, giving > declarer one trick, but later realize that leading the jack would > result in the taking of three tricks, and want to withdraw the > acquiescence. > > If West is an expert, no problem, right? Leading anything but the > jack would be irrational, not merely careless or inferior, so E/W > get three tricks. AG : Sorry, but the play of a low card is inferior, not irrational, even for a good player. Everybody has made such mistakes before. The irrational should be limited to clashing honors, not cashing a suit one knows to be high, underruffing, ruffing from both hands when presented a ruff-and-discard, and the like. There are wery few cases that I would judge to be irrational for a top-class player but not for a below-average player. Perhaps some standard safety plays (AQ10xx/K98x) would qualify. If West does not see in a second that he must lead the jack, there is at least some chance that he doesn't find it at all. Do not allaw the withdrawal. 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 Sep 4 23:35:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84DZCm09305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 23:35:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84DZ6H09301 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 23:35:07 +1000 (EST) Received: by GARFIELD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:28:49 +0100 Message-ID: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B2F97@GARFIELD> From: anna@ecats.co.uk To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:28:42 +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 The appeals are also available as a booklet, with additional statistics, in Acrobat PDF format at www.ecatsbridge.com in the Documents section - go to the directory called Appeals Information and you will see the folder with them in. anna -----Original Message----- From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu [mailto:willner@cfa.harvard.edu] Sent: 03 September 2001 23:42 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Here are a few statistics and comments about appeals at the recent EBL tournament. All the appeals are online at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm There were 40 "regular" appeals and one "tournament committee" meeting to address a violation of system regulations. (We discussed the latter a month or two ago.) Over half the appeals (23) dealt with misinformation. My overwhelming impression was that it was very hard to get redress for MI. Only two cases were given full redress, partial redress (L12C3) was given in five, and no redress whatever was given in sixteen. In a few of the latter, the decision was because the explanation given was deemed to be correct, but many had comments along the lines of "should have asked", "need to protect themselves," etc. We should avoid overgeneralizing: this was a very high-level tournament, played behind screens, and we don't know anything about TD decisions that were not appealed. Nevertheless, there were some cases where on the facts presented, I probably would have given redress but the AC gave none, and there were others where I would have used L12C2 to give full redress rather than partial. (Bear in mind that I'm from North America, where L12C3 is not used; possibly my bias is showing.) On the issue of frivolous appeals, the AC kept the deposit in 10 cases and commented in five more that they considered keeping it (or words to that effect). There were presumably a few more where keeping the deposit might have been considered but was not mentioned in the writeup. (I personally would put five in that category.) So something approaching half the appeals had dubious merit. Against that, of course, we don't know how many TD decisions might have merited an appeal but none was filed. (Does anyone know how many table-sessions were played at the tournament? I'm curious what the appeals ratio was.) Of the 16 "no-redress MI" cases, five deposits were kept. Only one more of these case was in the "considered keeping" category. That means the no-redress MI cases were on average just as meritorious as other categories of appeal. In cases of non-consequent damage, the practice was to let the table result stand for the NOS. (We have discussed alternatives on BLML.) Individual cases of interest: 30: The AC ruled non-consequent damage, but after the infraction (6H bid by EW), the best NS could have done was +300 (6Hx-2). If the infraction had not occurred, they would have scored +450 (5S=). The AC let the table result (-100, 6Sx-1) stand for NS. That seems harsh. 41: In a disputed-claim case, the AC stated a general principle that if declarer believes his hand to be high, trumps are played last. While that seems quite reasonable to me, this is the first time I have seen it stated. There was one case where the AC overruled the TD on a point of law. It was a claim case and may have been 41, but I regret that I didn't write down the number. The AC was correct in my opinion: L12C3 cannot be used for a disputed claim because no adjusted score is being assigned. I hope these comments are of some interest, and of course I welcome additions or corrections. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 5 01:02:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84F1S524239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:01:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84F1MH24235 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:01:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f84Ev9820440 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:57:09 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010904094105.00a1aaa0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 09:55:30 -0500 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-Reply-To: <005b01c134a0$03d09ea0$71df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:43 AM 9/4/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Roger Pewick wrote: > >Marvin L. French wrote: > >> Swiss teams > >> 1NT-P-2C-P (hesitation); 2H-P-3NT (promising spades > >> Opening leader has S-10987xx H-972 D-54 C-Q10 > >> The AC adjusted to 3NT making, feeling that a diamond > >>lead was suggested just as much as a club lead. > > > >I'm wondering why redress was asked for in the first place. > >Asking for redress seems reasonable to me. An argument >which the NOs could use is that if the hesitator had clubs, >given that he seems to have values, he most likely would >have doubled 2C anyway once he had hesitated. I think the situation is >complex, and difficult to analyse clearly. Without >having strong feelings either way, I don't disagree with the AC. This is precisely why I am against granting redress in this case, assuming I have all the facts. If the Os are experts, then a spade lead is not a logical alternative. [Yes, of course, there are hands where a passive lead or a singleton honor makes this lead work, but by that logic virtually any lead is a logical alternative on almost every hand.] In that case, then, redress can be granted only if you can show that a diamond lead is demonstrably suggested over a club and a heart. I doubt if you can show that. [Again, I agree that you can come up with possible explanations for the hesitation that yield possible hands for partner that make a diamond profit over the other two leads, but that isn't enough for 'demonstrably suggested'.] I would be prepared to be persuaded, of course, that experts can draw inferences that I could not draw, leading to this conclusion. If the Os are not experts, then a spade lead is probably a logical alternative, but the hesitation probably doesn't demonstrably suggest anything, since the inferences are too complex for a non-expert partnership to be likely to have worked them out. I am a decent player but not an expert by any means, and when I first saw the problem I couldn't figure out any way that partner's pause suggested for me to lead a diamond. I do not think that one has UI when the "I" would be available only if one made complex inferences that one's peers are extremely unlikely to make. [This illustrates the way that 'class of player involved', in it's peer-incarnation from L16, works against experts and not for them, to tie this with another current thread.] >Most certainly, a very complicated hand to analyse IMO. Here we definately agree. >Peter Gill >Australia. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 01:19:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84FJfY24256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:19:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84FJYH24252 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:19:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-12.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.12]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1FC789F3C for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:15:30 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Teams scoring question Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:09:45 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au (Mon 03 Sep 2001 23:21) writes: >> Chas Fellows (Brambledown) asserted: >> You cannot play long triangles over a lunch >> or tea break - unless you are prepared to >> isolate players involved in the triangle!. > This logistical problem is routinely solved > by the TD in Canberra region Swiss Teams. > > He simply runs lunch-spanning long triangles > in two complete half-match stanzas, with the > three teams involved permitted a half-time > scoreup before the meal. You are quite right - this effectively repeats two short triangles, adding together the IMP totals. Since, however, this approach incurs most of the supposed disadvantages associated with short triangles, why not score tham as half matches and take advantage of the opportunity to re-match opponents? This is, after all, what Swiss events are supposed to be about. 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 Sep 5 01:22:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84FMZg24268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:22:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84FMTH24264 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:22:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f84FIH807996 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:18:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010904095537.00a11ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 10:16:37 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player In-Reply-To: <007301c13499$f9f04bc0$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 09:59 AM 9/3/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >Law 69 says that acquiescence in an opponent's claim can be >withdrawn by a contestant, but only if he has acquiesced in >the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the >loss of a trick that could not be lost by any >normal* play of the remaining cards. > >*..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, >but not irrational, for the class of player involved" -- new >wording issued by the WBFLC > >We know pretty well what the footnote means for an expert >contestant, but what lesser play can be assumed for the lesser >lights? > >Far-out example: (make up your own if you don't like this one) > > Qxx > >KJ9 Axx > > 10xx > >West is on lead, and declarer, South, claims one tricks if West has >thejack, otherwise no tricks. E/W acquiesce in the claim, giving >declarer one trick, but later realize that leading the jack would >result in the taking of three tricks, and want to withdraw the >acquiescence. > >If West is an expert, no problem, right? Leading anything but the >jack would be irrational, not merely careless or inferior, so E/W >get three tricks. It has been argued that this is incorrect, since if expert-West didn't see this to begin with, we cannot accept that it would have been irrational for him to have led a non-J. I probably agree with that ruling _in this case_, but this thread obviously isn't intended to be about this specific example. >But how do you determine that a less-experienced West would not lead >the jack? Again, in this specific case it won't matter, because I'm almost certainly disallowing the withdrawl. But, in general, there is all sorts of evidence that would lead me to this conclusion that will be available in most cases: a) Who realized that the claim of the trick wasn't certain? If East had to convince West that the J lead gives three tricks, then it's much less likely that a non-J lead was "irrational" for W. b) Can W explain to me without coaching why it is that a non-J lead is vastly superior to the lead of the J in this situation? [If a non-J lead is _irrational_, then it must be the case that the J lead profits not just in this case but in virtually all cases.] c) How 'less experienced' is W, exactly? d) Etc. There are lots of similar bits of information that could be gleaned fairly quickly by a TD in a case like this, and even more by an AC. So in a case more complex than this, I just start asking W some questions like this and see where the evidence falls. >I would prefer that all E/W pairs be treated the same (i.e., two >tricks), it being too difficult to judge players' abilities, and >wish that "for the class of player involved" could be eliminated >from the footnote. It appears nowhere else in the Laws, and smacks >of favoritism toward experts. As I said in another thread, while it appears nowhere else in the laws the exact same concept appears in the adjudication of L16 [where we consider what one's peers would have done or considered], and in that context it often, perhaps even usually, serves to benefit the non-experts. It is also used by many TD's in evaluating "could have known" and similar concepts, again often handicapping rather than benefitting the experts. But, again, the key is what you think claim/concession law is supposed to accomplish. If you think that it is supposed to produce a result as similar as possible to what would have happened had the hand been played out without a claim/concession having been made [with close points resolved against the claimer/conceeder], then we need the 'class of player' concept. If you think that it is supposed to simply mechanically resolve a dispute so that the game can continue, then 'class of player' is an unnecessary hindrance and complication. Everyone knows where I stand on this by now. :) >I had always believed that the footnote was there merely to point >out that even experts can do things that are careless or inferior, >but not irrational. It seems unlikely that its additional purpose >was to point out that the inexperienced are not up to making an >expert play. Frankly, before joining BLML it never even occurred to me that the footnote could be read the way you read it. But that doesn't matter now-- I think you must choose what you want the law to do, and then decide what to do with the footnote. >Marv >Marvin L. French Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 01:49:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84Fmho24286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:48:43 +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 f84FmbH24282 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:48:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA32577; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:44:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Sep 2001 03:21:54 EDT." <200109030721.f837Ltw09141@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:44:31 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying wrote: > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:02:56 -0700 > > From: Adam Beneschan > > > > Ted Ying wrote: > > > > > Why does the hesitation suggest a diamond lead over a major lead? > > > Partner could have a heart bid just as easily as a diamond bid. > > > > Only if responder decided to bid like that with a singleton or void in > > hearts. It just isn't nearly as likely as a diamond bid. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > TY: Obviously, I'm missing something. Opening leader's hand > is 6-3-2-2. LHO has shown 4S but not 4H. RHO has shown an > opening NT with 4H. So, tell me again, why partner cannot > have a 5-card suit? What would LHO bid with a 4-1-4-4 shape > and RHO with a 3-4-4-2 shape? And wouldn't this leave partner > with a 5 card heart suit? In fact, wouldn't it leave partner > with a 0-5-3-5 shape? What you're missing is that I said "It isn't nearly as likely"---not "It's impossible." I never said it was impossible for partner to have a heart suit. One can construct hands where partner has a heart suit on this auction and could have been thinking about bidding it. But there still won't be nearly as many such hands as there hands with a diamond suit. Therefore, if a hesitation *could* be based on a heart suit but is much more likely to be based on a diamond suit, then it demonstrably suggests a diamond lead over a heart lead. I suspect that the heart suit is irrelevant here anyway (since I don't really think anyone could consider a heart lead to be an LA here). According to the Laws, the question we need to answer is, "Does the hesitation demonstrably suggest a diamond lead over a *spade* lead?" We don't need to answer questions about any other suits. If the answer to this question is Yes, and if the spade lead is a LA, then the diamond lead violates the Laws. The fact that the hesitation demonstrably shows clubs over everything else doesn't really have much bearing on the question of whether it demonstrably suggests a diamond over a spade. -- 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 Sep 5 01:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84FwIm24299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:58:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84FwBH24295 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 01:58:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-253.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.253]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f84CMFj07269 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:22:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B94A644.8CA311B3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 12:00:36 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals References: <200109032242.SAA10364@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Steve, all, willner@cfa.harvard.edu wrote: > > Here are a few statistics and comments about appeals at the recent > EBL tournament. All the appeals are online at > http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/tenapp.htm > Let's thank Yvan and the Swiss Federation once more for that. And yes, Anna, your work still has value as well. (Anna Gudge is at this moment preparing a booklet of the same appeals). > There were 40 "regular" appeals and one "tournament committee" meeting > to address a violation of system regulations. (We discussed the latter > a month or two ago.) > > Over half the appeals (23) dealt with misinformation. My overwhelming > impression was that it was very hard to get redress for MI. Only two > cases were given full redress, partial redress (L12C3) was given in > five, and no redress whatever was given in sixteen. In a few of the > latter, the decision was because the explanation given was deemed to be > correct, but many had comments along the lines of "should have asked", > "need to protect themselves," etc. We should avoid overgeneralizing: > this was a very high-level tournament, played behind screens, and we > don't know anything about TD decisions that were not appealed. > Nevertheless, there were some cases where on the facts presented, I > probably would have given redress but the AC gave none, and there were > others where I would have used L12C2 to give full redress rather than > partial. (Bear in mind that I'm from North America, where L12C3 is not > used; possibly my bias is showing.) > Steve hits the nail on the head. We don't know how many MI cases were treated by the TD's. Obviously it is far harder for a MI'er to appeal when he is ruled against, than it is for a receiver of MI to appeal when he does not get ruled for. So we see far more of those. And a substantial number of them got the correct ruling from the TD (no MI, or no damage). Thus it seems that the AC is lenient on MI, when of course that is not the case. > On the issue of frivolous appeals, the AC kept the deposit in 10 cases > and commented in five more that they considered keeping it (or words to > that effect). There were presumably a few more where keeping the > deposit might have been considered but was not mentioned in the > writeup. (I personally would put five in that category.) I have put words to the effect whenever the deposit was discussed. The AC had a good understanding of handing back or not - that was never a big discussion. > So something > approaching half the appeals had dubious merit. Again, a biased sample. With good directors, all appeals should have dubious merit. > Against that, of > course, we don't know how many TD decisions might have merited an > appeal but none was filed. (Does anyone know how many table-sessions > were played at the tournament? I'm curious what the appeals ratio > was.) > 0.90 appeals per 1000 boards played, that is the highest number since 1999. > Of the 16 "no-redress MI" cases, five deposits were kept. Only one > more of these case was in the "considered keeping" category. That > means the no-redress MI cases were on average just as meritorious as > other categories of appeal. > > In cases of non-consequent damage, the practice was to let the table > result stand for the NOS. (We have discussed alternatives on BLML.) > > Individual cases of interest: > 30: The AC ruled non-consequent damage, but after the infraction (6H bid > by EW), the best NS could have done was +300 (6Hx-2). If the infraction > had not occurred, they would have scored +450 (5S=). The AC let the > table result (-100, 6Sx-1) stand for NS. That seems harsh. > > 41: In a disputed-claim case, the AC stated a general principle that if > declarer believes his hand to be high, trumps are played last. While > that seems quite reasonable to me, this is the first time I have seen it > stated. > Which is exactly why Grattan and I were so happy with the case, and with the fact that it was a unanimous decision. > There was one case where the AC overruled the TD on a point of law. It > was a claim case and may have been 41, but I regret that I didn't write > down the number. The AC was correct in my opinion: L12C3 cannot be > used for a disputed claim because no adjusted score is being assigned. > It was indeed the same case, and I am surprised that no comment has yet surfaced on blml about it. Of course I am also of the opinion that the AC was correct - but I'd really like to hear the argumentation for the other side so that I can form a more considered opinion. We might just all be wrong on this one, mightn't we ? > I hope these comments are of some interest, and of course I welcome > additions or corrections. -- 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 Sep 5 02:42:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84Geol24326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:40:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f84GeiH24322 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:40:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA27296 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA16679 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200109041636.MAA16679@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: anna@ecats.co.uk > The appeals are also available as a booklet, with additional statistics, in > Acrobat PDF format at www.ecatsbridge.com in the Documents section - go to Thanks. That is very nicely formatted and includes Sorrento appeals as well as the ones from Tenerife. (It took me a minute to realize that, even though the appeals are clearly labelled.) >From the table on the last page, it appears the number of appeals has been running (with some variability) one per 2000 boards played. (It was closer to one per 1100 in Tenerife, but that was higher than normal. By the way, why only 38 appeals in the table and not 40? I understand that the "tournament committee appeal" should not be counted, but why are two more missing?) Linda Trent: can you estimate a number for the ACBL North American Championships? (I get something very different from the above, but I'm probably doing something 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 Wed Sep 5 02:49:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84GmPs24345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:48:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f84GmIH24341 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:48:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f84Gi5828285; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:44:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f84Gi5006104; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:44:05 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:44:05 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04401; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:44:04 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA28891; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:44:04 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:44:04 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200109041644.RAA28891@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hernam replies to Steve > > Against that, of > > course, we don't know how many TD decisions might have merited an > > appeal but none was filed. (Does anyone know how many table-sessions > > were played at the tournament? I'm curious what the appeals ratio > > was.) > > > > 0.90 appeals per 1000 boards played, that is the highest > number since 1999. In an email to me, soon after Tenerife, Max Bavin quoted 0.8 (41 appeals from 50K boards). He compared this to Brighton Swiss Pairs, which this year was approx. 10 appeals from 33K boards = 0.3 per 1000. > > There was one case where the AC overruled the TD on a point of law. It > > was a claim case and may have been 41, but I regret that I didn't write > > down the number. The AC was correct in my opinion: L12C3 cannot be > > used for a disputed claim because no adjusted score is being assigned. > > > > It was indeed the same case, and I am surprised that no > comment has yet surfaced on blml about it. Of course I am > also of the opinion that the AC was correct - but I'd really > like to hear the argumentation for the other side so that I > can form a more considered opinion. We might just all be > wrong on this one, mightn't we ? Perhaps everyone thinks its obvious. (David Stevenson thinks its obvious but would like to see it changed.) Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 02:52:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84GppT24357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:51:51 +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 f84GpjH24353 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 02:51:45 +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 SAA21492; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:46:32 +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 SAA19981; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:47:18 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <002f01c13561$d3efea20$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "BLML" , "Grant Sterling" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010904094105.00a1aaa0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] jurisprudency, was : Hesitation over Stayman Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 18:51:22 +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: Grant Sterling > If the Os are not experts, then a spade lead is probably a logical > alternative, but the hesitation probably doesn't demonstrably suggest anything, > since the inferences are too complex for a non-expert partnership to be likely > to have worked them out. I am a decent player but not an expert by any means, > and when I first saw the problem I couldn't figure out any way that partner's > pause suggested for me to lead a diamond. I do not think that one has UI when > the "I" would be available only if one made complex inferences that one's peers > are extremely unlikely to make. AG : I would like Grant's last sentence to serve as jurisprudency for UI cases. It seems (you see, Herman ?) to be very close to the compromise blmlists atttained about what constitutes UI. It constitutes a good paraphrase to the word 'demonstrably' in L16. Any comments ? 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 Sep 5 03:05:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84H5Gn24384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:05:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84H5AH24380 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:05:11 +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 f84H18R27531 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:01:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001d01c13563$1b50d040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007301c13499$f9f04bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <004c01c13529$0a7733c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 09:58:56 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner > From: Marvin L. French > > > Law 69 says that acquiescence in an opponent's claim can be > > withdrawn by a contestant, but only if he has acquiesced in > > the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the > > loss of a trick that could not be lost by any > > normal* play of the remaining cards. > > > *..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, > > but not irrational, for the class of player involved" -- new > > wording issued by the WBFLC > > > > > Qxx > > > > KJ9 Axx > > > > 10xx > > > > West is on lead, and declarer, South, claims one tricks if West has > > thejack, otherwise no tricks. E/W acquiesce in the claim, giving > > declarer one trick, but later realize that leading the jack would > > result in the taking of three tricks, and want to withdraw the > > acquiescence. > > > > If West is an expert, no problem, right? Leading anything but the > > jack would be irrational, not merely careless or inferior, so E/W > > get three tricks. > > AG : Sorry, but the play of a low card is inferior, not irrational, even for > a good player. Everybody has made such mistakes before. Well, I said if you don't like the example, come up with another one. > The irrational > should be limited to clashing honors, not cashing a suit one knows to be > high, underruffing, ruffing from both hands when presented a > ruff-and-discard, and the like. There are wery few cases that I would judge > to be irrational for a top-class player but not for a below-average player. > Perhaps some standard safety plays (AQ10xx/K98x) would qualify. But no one would concede a trick with that holding. I am looking for an example that makes the "class of player" a factor. > If West does not see in a second that he must lead the jack, there is at > least some chance that he doesn't find it at all. Do not allaw the > withdrawal. As I said, let's come up with an example for which the class of player makes a difference. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 03:56:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84HtQw25449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:55:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84HtKH25445 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 03:55:21 +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 f84HpIR13557 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004101c1356a$1d7fba00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20010904095537.00a11ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:48:10 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Law 69 says that acquiescence in an opponent's claim can be > >withdrawn by a contestant, but only if he has acquiesced in > >the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the > >loss of a trick that could not be lost by any > >normal* play of the remaining cards. > > > >*..."normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, > >but not irrational, for the class of player involved" -- new > >wording issued by the WBFLC > > > >We know pretty well what the footnote means for an expert > >contestant, but what lesser play can be assumed for the lesser > >lights? > > > >Far-out example: (make up your own if you don't like this one) > > > > Qxx > > > >KJ9 Axx > > > > 10xx > > > >West is on lead, and declarer, South, claims one tricks if West has > >thejack, otherwise no tricks. E/W acquiesce in the claim, giving > >declarer one trick, but later realize that leading the jack would > >result in the taking of three tricks, and want to withdraw the > >acquiescence. > > > >If West is an expert, no problem, right? Leading anything but the > >jack would be irrational, not merely careless or inferior, so E/W > >get three tricks. > > It has been argued that this is incorrect, since if > expert-West didn't see this to begin with, we cannot accept that > it would have been irrational for him to have led a non-J. > I probably agree with that ruling _in this case_, but > this thread obviously isn't intended to be about this specific > example. Quite right. If my example was a poor one, let's have another. Please come up with an example for which the class of player would be a factor. > >I would prefer that all E/W pairs be treated the same (i.e., two > >tricks), it being too difficult to judge players' abilities, and > >wish that "for the class of player involved" could be eliminated > >from the footnote. It appears nowhere else in the Laws, and > >smacks of favoritism toward experts. > > As I said in another thread, while it appears nowhere > else in the laws the exact same concept appears in the adjudication > of L16 [where we consider what one's peers would have done or > considered], I see no mention of "peers" in L16. The lawmakers could have written "logical alternative for the class of player involved" if that's what was meant. That should be understood?? Then why did they footnote the word "normal" in L69, 70, and 71? > and in that context it often, > perhaps even usually, serves to benefit the non-experts. I see no evidence of that in the NABC casebooks. > It is also used > by many TD's in evaluating "could have known" and similar concepts, again often > handicapping rather than benefitting the experts. Requiring inappropriate mind reading, IMO. > But, again, the key is what you think claim/concession law is > supposed to accomplish. If you think that it is supposed to > produce a result as similar as possible to what would have > happened had the hand been played out without a claim/concession > having been made [with close points resolved against the > claimer/conceeder], then we need the 'class of player' > concept. If you think that it is supposed to simply mechanically > resolve a dispute so that the game can continue, then 'class of > player' is an unnecessary hindrance and complication. Exactly. Just like the revoke laws. > Everyone knows where I stand on this by now. :) And I! :)) > > >I had always believed that the footnote was there merely to point > >out that even experts can do things that are careless or > >inferior, but not irrational. It seems unlikely that its > >additional purpose was to point out that the inexperienced > >are not up to making an expert play. > > Frankly, before joining BLML it never even occurred to me > that the footnote could be read the way you read it. But > that doesn't matter now--I think you must choose what you > want the law to do, and then decide what to do with the > footnote. Here is your reading: "careless, inferior, but not superior or irrational, for the class of player involved." I see no justification for that reading. I want the law to treat everyone equally, because there is no way of measuring a player's ability, and even if there were, there is no way to tell what any player would do in a given situation, or how forgetful s/he is, how erratic, how inattentive, what tendencies s/he has, etc. I knew all about squeezes when I had 10 masterpoints, and I know high-ranking players in San Diego who know nothing about squeezes. Only at the very highest levels of expert ranking can one predict with confidence what a player would do. Since it isn't possible below that level, it isn't right to apply the principle to every level. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 04:29:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84ITMr00885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 04:29:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f84ITGH00867 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 04:29:17 +1000 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:43:14 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D1E@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 13:43:11 -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: Marvin L. French From: "Alain Gottcheiner > There are wery few cases that I would judge > to be irrational for a top-class player but not for a below-average player. > Perhaps some standard safety plays (AQ10xx/K98x) would qualify. But no one would concede a trick with that holding. I am looking for an example that makes the "class of player" a factor. Marv ---------------- But people do lose a trick with just such a holding at local bridge clubs every day of the week. A top level player handles this without thinking about it. It does not require any effort. It is a habit to get it right. To get it wrong is unthinkable -- i.e. irational. On the other hand, for many club level players getting it right requires active thought. Getting it wrong means they probably didn't think about it, but that makes it careless, not irational. I deal with club players, mostly novice and intermediate levels. I see actions described by some on BLML as "clearly irational" that are just inferior for my players. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 05:35:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84JZ1j05594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:35:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f84JYpH05586 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:34:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-5.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.5]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f84JUl014338 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:30:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <018301c13578$b0f553e0$053d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:34:47 +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 "Adam Beneschan" wrote: > I suspect that the heart suit is irrelevant here anyway (since I don't > really think anyone could consider a heart lead to be an LA here). > According to the Laws, the question we need to answer is, "Does the > hesitation demonstrably suggest a diamond lead over a *spade* lead?" > We don't need to answer questions about any other suits. If the > answer to this question is Yes, and if the spade lead is a LA, then > the diamond lead violates the Laws. Not necessarily. The player has AI (opponents' bidding plus his own major suit length) that partner has a D suit. I find is easier to figure out the D lead from the AI than to interprete the hesitation as suggesting a D lead over a S lead. You know partner has at most a singleton S. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 05:35:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84JZ0V05593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:35:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pl200.saunalahti.fi ([195.211.226.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f84JYpH05585 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:34:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-194-29-61-5.berlin.gigabell.net [194.29.61.5]) by pl200.saunalahti.fi (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id f84JUk014331 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:30:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <018201c13578$b099c660$053d1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <017901c134bd$931b7cc0$71df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 21:34:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Peter Gill" wrote: > Steve Wilner wrote: > >FWIW, I think a spade lead is a LA in North America but > >not anywhere else in the world. (Do you really believe > >even as many as 10% of players would lead a spade, > >let alone the 25% required in most jurisdictions?) > > Assuming no hesitation: > > At a club duplicate in Sydney, I'd estimate about 50% would > lead a spade. Whatever anybody would do at pairs is completely unrelated. The conditions for the hand are IMPs, when you want to beat 3NT rather than just reduce overtricks. I agree that at *pairs* a S lead would be an LA. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 05:54:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f84Js0e05618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:54:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f84JrsH05614 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 05:53:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f84JnmR23715; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008201c1357a$ab7c0b00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087D1E@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Class of Player Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:49:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I repeat, someone please given an example of a conceded trick that can be restored in accordance with L69, based on the class of player involved. I couldn't come up with one, obviously - Marv From: "John Nichols" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:43 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Class of Player > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner > > > There are wery few cases that I would judge > > to be irrational for a top-class player but not for a > below-average player. > > Perhaps some standard safety plays (AQ10xx/K98x) would qualify. > > But no one would concede a trick with that holding. I am looking for > an example that makes the "class of player" a factor. > > > Marv > ---------------- > > But people do lose a trick with just such a holding at local bridge clubs > every day of the week. > > A top level player handles this without thinking about it. It does not > require any effort. It is a habit to get it right. To get it wrong is > unthinkable -- i.e. irational. > > On the other hand, for many club level players getting it right requires > active thought. Getting it wrong means they probably didn't think about it, > but that makes it careless, not irational. > > I deal with club players, mostly novice and intermediate levels. I see > actions described by some on BLML as "clearly irational" that are just > inferior for my players. > > -- > ==================================================================== ==== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sep 5 17:31:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f857UPM09454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:30:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f857UEH09414 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:30:16 +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 JAA05073; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:25:16 +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 JAA24228; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:26:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <001801c135dc$968ec220$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Thomas Dehn" , References: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> <018301c13578$b0f553e0$053d1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:30:06 +0200 Organization: ULB 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- > Not necessarily. The player has AI (opponents' bidding > plus his own major suit length) that partner > has a D suit. I find is easier to figure out the D lead > from the AI than to interprete the hesitation > as suggesting a D lead over a S lead. > You know partner has at most a singleton S. AG : yes, the non-spade lead is suggested over the spade lead by the leader's hand, which is after all AI. A heart lead is discouraged by the bidding, which is AI. As for the issue of a club vs a diamond, if we can't agree about which is more suggested than the other, that's strong evidence that no one is 'demonstrably suggested'. This settled the case pretty easily, doesn't it ? A. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 5 22:49:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85CmQG18120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:48:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85CmKH18116 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f85CiEf11313 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:44:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:44 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman 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: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > What you're missing is that I said "It isn't nearly as likely"---not > "It's impossible." I never said it was impossible for partner to have > a heart suit. One can construct hands where partner has a heart suit > on this auction and could have been thinking about bidding it. But > there still won't be nearly as many such hands as there hands with a > diamond suit. Therefore, if a hesitation *could* be based on a heart > suit but is much more likely to be based on a diamond suit, then it > demonstrably suggests a diamond lead over a heart lead. I'm not sure this is correct. The likelihood of partner having a heart suit relative to diamonds seems to be a function of the auction and independent of the hesitation. Put another I would expect the proportion of hands with hearts that are "near biddable" to the same as the proportion of hands with diamonds that are "near biddable" and thus the hesitation doesn't affect their relative merits. 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 Sep 6 01:35:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85FX2d18290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 01:33:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85FWvH18286 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 01:32:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA29291; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:28:41 -0700 Message-Id: <200109051528.IAA29291@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Sep 2001 13:44:00 BST." Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 08:28:40 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam wrote: > > > What you're missing is that I said "It isn't nearly as likely"---not > > "It's impossible." I never said it was impossible for partner to have > > a heart suit. One can construct hands where partner has a heart suit > > on this auction and could have been thinking about bidding it. But > > there still won't be nearly as many such hands as there hands with a > > diamond suit. Therefore, if a hesitation *could* be based on a heart > > suit but is much more likely to be based on a diamond suit, then it > > demonstrably suggests a diamond lead over a heart lead. > > I'm not sure this is correct. The likelihood of partner having a heart > suit relative to diamonds seems to be a function of the auction and > independent of the hesitation. That's true; but I don't think this disproves the theory that the hesitation demonstrably suggests a diamond over a heart. Let me try an abstract example. Suppose you have an auction where partner has passed throughout. Now it's your turn to lead. Suppose that a black-suit lead is not an LA, so you have to decide between a diamond and a heart. Looking at just the AI, the two leads look about equal. Now suppose that, before one of his passes, partner muttered audibly, "Should I bid my 6-bagger here? No, I don't think it's a good idea." Now you have the UI that partner has a long suit. The UI doesn't tell you what suit it is. But AI from the auction and your own hand tells you that the suit is 90% likely to be diamonds, and 10% likely to be hearts (spades and clubs are impossible). The knowledge that partner has a long suit definitely affects your choice of lead. If partner's long suit is diamonds, the best lead is a diamond, and if it's hearts, the best lead is a heart. Now, even though the UI hasn't really told you which suit to lead, the UI, taken together with the AI, still allows you to conclude that a diamond lead will work 9 times as often as a heart lead. Therefore, since the diamond and heart leads looked equal without the UI, the UI has caused a diamond lead to become demonstrably suggested over the heart lead. Without the hesitation, here is what you would know: "*If* partner has a long suit, it's much more likely to be diamonds than hearts; BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE HAS A LONG SUIT." That's the key---that you didn't know partner had a long suit without the hesitation. The hesitation has transformed your knowledge and thus significantly altered the relative merits of the two leads. On the other hand, suppose you knew just from AI that you had to hit partner's long suit in order to beat the hand, and that if partner doesn't have a long suit you were sunk anyway. Now, the diamond lead is 9 times as good as the heart lead *without* the UI; so the UI hasn't changed anything and thus doesn't demonstrably suggest anything. I hope this all makes sense. It's rather difficult to express in English. The notion I'm trying to put forth here is that if UI from partner doesn't tell you anything specific about his hand, but nevertheless changes the relative percentages of two logical alternatives' success so that action A now appears signficantly more likely to succeed than action B, whereas without the UI actions A and B would be about equal or B would be more likely to succeed than A, then the UI has demonstrably suggested A over B, and therefore A is illegal. None of this applies exactly to the original hand since I don't really consider a heart lead an LA on that hand. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 02:03:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85G3P322357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 02:03:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85G3JH22345 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 02:03:19 +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 f85FxFR07172 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003c01c13623$a00ac460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> <018301c13578$b0f553e0$053d1dc2@rabbit> <001801c135dc$968ec220$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:52:58 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > AG : yes, the non-spade lead is suggested over the spade lead by the > leader's hand, which is after all AI. A heart lead is discouraged by the > bidding, which is AI. As for the issue of a club vs a diamond, if we can't > agree about which is more suggested than the other, that's strong evidence > that no one is 'demonstrably suggested'. This settled the case pretty > easily, doesn't it ? > UI doesn't have to point to a single action for its effect to be illegal. If UI suggests action over passing, then any action, double or bid, beccomes illegal if passing is logical. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 03:28:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85HRk800768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 03:27:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85HRfH00764 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 03:27:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-90-201.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.90.201] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15egOi-000IBJ-00; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 18:23:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c1362f$d7c10ac0$c95a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Subject: [BLML] Homecoming Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:24:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 04:10:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-114.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.114] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15eh3g-0003Qe-00; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 19:05:52 +0100 Message-ID: <004d01c13635$c1aa13c0$c95a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200109032242.SAA10364@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3B94A644.8CA311B3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:07:19 +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: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals > > 41: In a disputed-claim case, the AC stated a general principle that if > > declarer believes his hand to be high, trumps are played last. While > > that seems quite reasonable to me, this is the first time I have seen it > > stated. > > > > Which is exactly why Grattan and I were so happy with the > case, and with the fact that it was a unanimous decision. > +=+ Memory tells me that we did limit the statement to players of a certain level of competence and above. I do not know what the corporate opinion would be in relation to players below that level.+=+ > > > There was one case where the AC overruled the TD > > on a point of law. It was a claim case and may have > > been 41, but I regret that I didn't write down the number. > > The AC was correct in my opinion: L12C3 cannot be > > used for a disputed claim because no adjusted score is > > being assigned. > > +=+ So we said. This was the TAC acting as the 'national authority', as empowered by the regulations. In my opinion, for EBL events it is now a 'landmark' decision holding good unless overturned by a higher authority. +=+ > > It was indeed the same case, and I am surprised that no > comment has yet surfaced on blml about it. Of course I am > also of the opinion that the AC was correct - but I'd really > like to hear the argumentation for the other side so that I > can form a more considered opinion. We might just all be > wrong on this one, mightn't we ? > +=+ The subject cropped up in a question-time discussion at the seminar in Tabiano. The more senior Director (of two) concerned with the ruling in Tenerife argued strongly a belief that the change of score after a claim is an assigned adjusted score; I do not agree this since the relevant Law talks about 'rescoring' the board, not about 'adjusting' the score. There was no support from other panel members nor from the floor in Tabiano. ~ 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 Sep 6 05:00:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85Ixh400845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 04:59:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85IxcH00841 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 04:59:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85IrSr11121 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:53:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200109051853.f85IrSr11121@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:53:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <003c01c13623$a00ac460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Sep 05, 2001 08:52:58 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 08:52:58 -0700 > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > AG : yes, the non-spade lead is suggested over the spade lead by > the > > leader's hand, which is after all AI. A heart lead is discouraged > by the > > bidding, which is AI. As for the issue of a club vs a diamond, if > we can't > > agree about which is more suggested than the other, that's strong > evidence > > that no one is 'demonstrably suggested'. This settled the case > pretty > > easily, doesn't it ? > > > UI doesn't have to point to a single action for its effect to be > illegal. If UI suggests action over passing, then any action, double > or bid, beccomes illegal if passing is logical. > TY: But this doesn't apply here. The UI wasn't an issue during the auction, but whether to influence a lead. You can't bar opening leader from making any lead or the four at the table will get a procedural penalty for holding up the game! :-) The question is whether the UI or the AI suggested a diamond lead over a major (namely spades since the concession has been made that a heart lead isn't that realistic or reasonable after the auction). To my mind the fact that you have 2 HCP and partner has 6-13 HCP and known shortage in spades is reasonable enough to suggest that a non-spade lead is more constructive. I agree that a passive lead may be reasonable at MP's, but at IMP's, the chances or a passive lead working when they have freely bid game is very unlikely. Unless you know there is a problem/hitch for them in the play of the hand, your best bet is to try to use the tempo of the lead to set up partner's hand. Will a spade do that? No. And I think that most players would agree that from AI alone without the UI, the player can determine that a diamond is a better lead than a spade. Personally, I really dislike the "if it hesitates, shoot it" mentality. As a long-time club owner, manager, and director (at different stages of the last 15 years), I have found that that type of mentality helps to shrink the game by driving away less experienced duplicate players. The spirit is not to punish players whose partners hesitate, but to make sure they don't take any action that was only suggested by the UI. I think in this case, the action could easily be determined without the UI and should not be restricted. In any event, I think granting the NOS the making game is completely wrong. If you want to award against the NOS side, you should give a split ruling for the two sides. To me allowing the NOS to make the game is pure windfall by letter and not spirit of the law and that should not be allowed. -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 Sep 6 05:02:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85J2Zt01274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:02:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f85J2SH01243 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:02:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.18.7]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010905185823.GECH20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:58:23 +0100 Message-ID: <009601c1363c$5fd4be00$0712ff3e@jones1> From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <000b01c1362f$d7c10ac0$c95a063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Homecoming Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:55:46 +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: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:24 PM Subject: [BLML] Homecoming > > Grattan Endicott "Of the three hundred grant but three > To make a new Thermopylae" ~ Byron > . + + + + > > +=+ Landed safely at Manchester > Airport today at 1330 hours, our delayed > bus from Tabiano having nevertheless > connected with an earlier flight to M/cr > (also delayed) than the one I was due > to join. > > The seminar was a great success and > there were a number of very good > performances by some of the 61 > 'candidates'. Sixteen were placed in > the 'A' category. All course members > were give the blml address, so we may > meet some new names (to the list) > before long We also had the pleasure > of meeting face to face some of the > to-now only 'names' on blml. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Congratulations Grattan on that coup. Arriving in Manchester 4 hours before you were due to leave Milan, and at a time that DWS was probably still riding around Italy on a train :-) I enjoyed the course and I suspect that I benefited greatly from it, even though I was not one of the first 16 :-( We were particularly proud of Fearghal O'Boyle of this group however. Fearghal produced some excellent work and achieved third place. Well done that man. It certainly was good to meet other blml contributors, amazing to realise that these guys have faces - nice ones too :-) Regards Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 05:10:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85JANr02894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:10:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85JAGH02874 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:10:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f85J47L11378 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:04:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200109051904.f85J47L11378@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:04:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> from "Adam Beneschan" at Sep 04, 2001 08:44:31 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 TY: Whereas I concede that a spade lead is a LA at MP's where a passive lead might be the best strategy, I don't think that is reasonable at IMPs. At IMPs, 10 tricks or 9 tricks don't matter but 8 tricks does. Holding a non-theatening 6 card suit and leading passively isn't likely to set up 5 tricks when you hold 2 HCP and partner holds 6-13 HCP and 0/1 of your suit. However, leading a suit (any suit) that partner might have is more likely a winning strategy. I think that spades is ruled out by the AI and form or scoring. So, I think that it should be allowed. I think that forcing a spade lead is a bit too much of "law nazis" and is bad for the game. It reeks of "if it hesitates, shoot it" and also is very discouraging to less experienced players. Although I agree that the director should probably rule in favor of the NOS, I don't think the AC should do so in this case. -Ted. > Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:44:31 -0700 > From: Adam Beneschan > > What you're missing is that I said "It isn't nearly as likely"---not > "It's impossible." I never said it was impossible for partner to have > a heart suit. One can construct hands where partner has a heart suit > on this auction and could have been thinking about bidding it. But > there still won't be nearly as many such hands as there hands with a > diamond suit. Therefore, if a hesitation *could* be based on a heart > suit but is much more likely to be based on a diamond suit, then it > demonstrably suggests a diamond lead over a heart lead. > > I suspect that the heart suit is irrelevant here anyway (since I don't > really think anyone could consider a heart lead to be an LA here). > According to the Laws, the question we need to answer is, "Does the > hesitation demonstrably suggest a diamond lead over a *spade* lead?" > We don't need to answer questions about any other suits. If the > answer to this question is Yes, and if the spade lead is a LA, then > the diamond lead violates the Laws. The fact that the hesitation > demonstrably shows clubs over everything else doesn't really have much > bearing on the question of whether it demonstrably suggests a diamond > over a spade. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 05:28:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85JSTm03884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:28:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85JSMH03880 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 05:28:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with ESMTP id f85JNcJ28967; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:23:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20010905135415.00a197c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:00:08 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Cc: In-Reply-To: <003c01c13623$a00ac460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> <018301c13578$b0f553e0$053d1dc2@rabbit> <001801c135dc$968ec220$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:52 AM 9/5/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > AG : yes, the non-spade lead is suggested over the spade lead by >the > > leader's hand, which is after all AI. A heart lead is discouraged >by the > > bidding, which is AI. As for the issue of a club vs a diamond, if >we can't > > agree about which is more suggested than the other, that's strong >evidence > > that no one is 'demonstrably suggested'. This settled the case >pretty > > easily, doesn't it ? > > >UI doesn't have to point to a single action for its effect to be >illegal. If UI suggests action over passing, then any action, double >or bid, beccomes illegal if passing is logical. I see--the player in this case shouldn't have led a diamond, he should have passed. :):):) Seriously, I certainly agree with Marv's point, but it doesn't, IMHO, apply to this case. I agree completely with Alain's reasoning. I have very strong AI not to lead a spade or heart. So since I must lead, I must lead a diamond or club. I can't tell which is suggested over which, and I certainly can't see that one has been _demonstrably_ suggested over the other, and so I am free to lead either one. I would never have asked for redress on a hand like this--the argument that a diamond should be led is sooooo tenuous. I can _easily_ imagine someone making arguments just as strong that a club, spade, or heart lead was 'suggested', and the player has to lead something. >Marv >Marvin L. French, Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 06:54:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85KrgJ03946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 06:53:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85KrbH03942 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 06:53:37 +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 f85KnWR17821 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007e01c1364c$2e425cc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200109032242.SAA10364@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3B94A644.8CA311B3@village.uunet.be> <004d01c13635$c1aa13c0$c95a063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 13:47:41 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > > 41: In a disputed-claim case, the AC stated a general principle > that if > > > declarer believes his hand to be high, trumps are played last. > While > > > that seems quite reasonable to me, this is the first time I have > seen it > > > stated. This can't be right, except in circumstances similar to Tenerife Appeal 41. Declarer had a surely high trump, an honor, and a lower trump that was not surely high if there was an outstanding trump after cashing the high trump. Anyone in this situation would play the lower trump last, of course, just in case, even when believing that all trumps are gone. However, the surely high trump(s) are played first, not last, just in case there is a "lurker." > > > Which is exactly why Grattan and I were so happy with the > > case, and with the fact that it was a unanimous decision. > > > +=+ Memory tells me that we did limit the statement > to players of a certain level of competence and above. > I do not know what the corporate opinion would be in > relation to players below that level.+=+ I think it's wrong to assume that lower-level players are stupid. I can't imagine a duplicate player at any level leading out a last trump that is not surely high before cashing side tricks. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 07:22:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85LMBh03968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:22:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85LM5H03964 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:22:06 +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 f85LI1R22680; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a801c13650$28cea740$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: <200109041544.IAA32577@mailhub.irvine.com> <018301c13578$b0f553e0$053d1dc2@rabbit> <001801c135dc$968ec220$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20010905135415.00a197c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 14:12:36 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" > At 08:52 AM 9/5/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > > > AG : yes, the non-spade lead is suggested over the spade lead by > >the > > > leader's hand, which is after all AI. A heart lead is discouraged > >by the > > > bidding, which is AI. As for the issue of a club vs a diamond, if > >we can't > > > agree about which is more suggested than the other, that's strong > >evidence > > > that no one is 'demonstrably suggested'. This settled the case > >pretty > > > easily, doesn't it ? > > > > >UI doesn't have to point to a single action for its effect to be > >illegal. If UI suggests action over passing, then any action, double > >or bid, beccomes illegal if passing is logical. > > I see--the player in this case shouldn't have led a diamond, he should > have passed. :):):) > Seriously, I certainly agree with Marv's point, but it doesn't, > IMHO, apply to this case. Just stating a principle misstated by Alain, not thinking of this case particularly. In the absence of a hesitation I would have led a diamond, since partner did not double 2C. I don't think the hesitation could possibly have been based on clubs, with me holding the Q10. Nor is it likely that partner has hearts. He has diamonds, that's pretty sure, but I see no logical alternative to a diamond lead in an IMP game. If perchance partner does have clubs, my ethics reputation will be enhanced and I won't reveal that I was going to lead a diamond in any case. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 07:56:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85LtmZ03997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:55:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85LthH03993 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:55:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd00.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15eka7-0007fs-0A; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 23:51:35 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.165.128]) by fwd00.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15eka3-0K57S4C; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:51:31 +0200 Message-ID: <3B969F18.3A8385C2@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 23:54:32 +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] Homecoming References: <000b01c1362f$d7c10ac0$c95a063e@dodona> 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 Grattan Endicott schrieb: > Grattan Endicott "Of the three hundred grant but three > To make a new Thermopylae" ~ Byron > . + + + + > > +=+ Landed safely at Manchester > Airport today at 1330 hours, our delayed > bus from Tabiano having nevertheless > connected with an earlier flight to M/cr > (also delayed) than the one I was due > to join. > Glad to hear that. Dietlind (at least) didn't make her flight but could arrange another one ( with the usual slight additional fee for the computer operator actually having to touch the keyboard, of course).My flight actually was delayed, but I landed safely too. > > The seminar was a great success and > there were a number of very good > performances by some of the 61 > 'candidates'. Sixteen were placed in > the 'A' category. In the first place it was a pleasure for the `candidates' to work with our tutors. I don't think anybody failed to learn lots of things about the laws and about directing. > All course members > were give the blml address, so we may > meet some new names (to the list) > before long I believe it won't be 'a few'. Nearly all of them is a more fitting description. > We also had the pleasure > of meeting face to face some of the > to-now only 'names' on blml. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Couldn't have put it better. 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 Thu Sep 6 08:27:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85MRB204019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85MR5H04015 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:27:06 +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 IAA03315 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:30:55 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 08:10:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game To: "bridge-laws::.gov.au":"rgb.anu.edu.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:17:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/09/2001 08:16:16 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 *Hesitation over Stayman*, Ted Ying wrote: [big snip] >...you should give a split ruling for the two sides. >To me allowing the NOS to make the game is pure windfall >by letter and not spirit of the law and that should not >be allowed. I strongly disagree. There are ethical players who deliberately decide to play in a ridiculous contract, going down -1400, because they avoid using UI pard has given them during the auction. Their opponents naturally get a windfall. But Ted Ying's anti-windfall split ruling principle would mean that the NOS might or might not score +1400, depending solely on how ethical the OS were in avoiding use of UI. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 08:33:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85MXVe04031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:33:31 +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 f85MXPH04027 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:33:26 +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 SAA05938 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:29:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA00810 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:29:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:29:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200109052229.SAA00810@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" >. However, the surely high trump(s) are > played first, not last, just in case there is a "lurker." I don't think L70C allows playing the high trump early, in most cases. Consider declarer with AK, A, where the AK-suit is trumps. If declarer claims with no statement, and the side ace is ruffable, don't we give the defense a trick (unless there are special circumstances that make 70C2 not apply)? If the principle "all trumps last unless stated otherwise" can be established, it would allow objective judgment of at least some claims. As such, it seems a big step in the right direction. > I think it's wrong to assume that lower-level players are stupid. I agree with that. It would be terrific if we could have general principles by which all claims are judged. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 09:00:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85N08j04058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:00:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f85N02H04054 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:00:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA06638 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA00912 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:55:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:55:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200109052255.SAA00912@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ted Ying > The question is whether the UI or the AI suggested a diamond lead > over a major (namely spades since the concession has been made that > a heart lead isn't that realistic or reasonable after the auction). More precisely, the AC has to answer two questions: 1. What does the UI suggest? In the specific instance, does the hesitation mean "Lead a club," or does it mean "I have a long suit; try to find it." 2. Is a spade a LA? If the AC thinks the meaning is the second one and that a spade is a LA, then a diamond is illegal. There are, as the lawyers like to say, meritorious arguments on both sides of both questions. > The spirit is not to punish players > whose partners hesitate, but to make sure they don't take any > action that was only suggested by the UI. Whatever the spirit might be, the above is not what the Laws (16A, 73C) say. > If you want to award against the NOS side, you should give a split > ruling for the two sides. As Richard said, if one side does something illegal, why should the innocent side end up worse off than if they had been playing against opponents who followed the rules? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 09:21:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85NKsj04088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:20:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f85NKmH04084 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.227.157]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:16:39 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c13661$281cfac0$9de31e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <000b01c1362f$d7c10ac0$c95a063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Homecoming Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:19:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Pyner and I got home eventually at almost 2300 Uk time about 16 hours after setting out from Tabiano - We too had a great time and made many friends - thanks guys Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:24 PM Subject: [BLML] Homecoming > > Grattan Endicott "Of the three hundred grant but three > To make a new Thermopylae" ~ Byron > . + + + + > > +=+ Landed safely at Manchester > Airport today at 1330 hours, our delayed > bus from Tabiano having nevertheless > connected with an earlier flight to M/cr > (also delayed) than the one I was due > to join. > > The seminar was a great success and > there were a number of very good > performances by some of the 61 > 'candidates'. Sixteen were placed in > the 'A' category. All course members > were give the blml address, so we may > meet some new names (to the list) > before long We also had the pleasure > of meeting face to face some of the > to-now only 'names' on blml. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 09:38:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85NbOU04101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:37:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85NbJH04097 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:37:19 +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 QAA07360; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:33:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200109052333.QAA07360@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Sep 2001 08:17:25 +1000." Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 16:33:03 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > In the thread *Hesitation over Stayman*, Ted Ying wrote: > > [big snip] > > >...you should give a split ruling for the two sides. > >To me allowing the NOS to make the game is pure windfall > >by letter and not spirit of the law and that should not > >be allowed. > > I strongly disagree. > > There are ethical players who deliberately decide to > play in a ridiculous contract, going down -1400, because > they avoid using UI pard has given them during the auction. > Their opponents naturally get a windfall. > > But Ted Ying's anti-windfall split ruling principle would > mean that the NOS might or might not score +1400, depending > solely on how ethical the OS were in avoiding use of UI. > > Best wishes > > Richard Someday, I'll be playing against someone who believes windfalls are against the spirit of the game, and I make a stupid bid that gives them a free +1400 or make a stupid defensive play that lets them make a ridiculous slam, and they'll offer to give it back because they're opposed to windfalls and they practice what they preach. Think that'll happen? NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH . . . -- 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 Sep 6 09:46:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85NjNw04127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:45:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front2.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f85NjGH04123 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:45:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 5010 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2001 23:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Rui) (217.129.46.251) by 213.228.128.57 with SMTP; 5 Sep 2001 23:41:24 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Rui M.L.Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Homecoming Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:40:26 +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 In-Reply-To: <002201c13661$281cfac0$9de31e3e@mikeamos> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My flights from/to Portugal are almost legendary (once took 14 hours from Portugal to Malta) but this time I managed OK. My flight was surprisingly still open and after 3h45 minutes on the magical school bus I just had to wait for the plane (!) 45 minutes (late, of course, what else?) and then the scheduled flying time so at 15:00 local time I had my luggage in my car (uf!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 09:52:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f85Np4004139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f85NoxH04135 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:50:59 +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 QAA07770; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:46:47 -0700 Message-Id: <200109052346.QAA07770@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation over Stayman In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Sep 2001 18:55:57 EDT." <200109052255.SAA00912@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 16:46:47 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > More precisely, the AC has to answer two questions: > > 1. What does the UI suggest? I think this question is worded incorrectly. The correct question is "Does the UI suggest the action actually taken over some logical alternative?" ("Demonstrably", of course.) Although this seems like a nitpick, the incorrect wording could lead to what I believe is an incorrect ruling. This would be the case when there are three or more logical actions, and those actions A, B, and C can be ordered as A >> B >> C, where ">>" means "demonstrably suggested over". The question "What does the UI suggest?" implies that the answer will be just one action (*), which in this example would be action A. If you look at things this way, you might conclude that any action other than A is legal. However, the wording of the last sentence of L16A does not view things this way; rather, it makes it illegal to choose an action that is demonstrably suggested over some other action. The wording of this Law makes it clear that B is illegal as well as A. -- Adam (*) note that an "action" could be a class of calls or plays, rather than a specific call or a specific 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 Sep 6 11:03:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8611gS04211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:01:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8611aH04207 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:01:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id AAA09655 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:57:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 01:55:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game References: <200109052333.QAA07360@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200109052333.QAA07360@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200109052333.QAA07360@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Richard Hills wrote: > >> In the thread *Hesitation over Stayman*, Ted Ying wrote: >> >> [big snip] >> >> >...you should give a split ruling for the two sides. >> >To me allowing the NOS to make the game is pure windfall >> >by letter and not spirit of the law and that should not >> >be allowed. >> >> I strongly disagree. >> >> There are ethical players who deliberately decide to >> play in a ridiculous contract, going down -1400, because >> they avoid using UI pard has given them during the auction. >> Their opponents naturally get a windfall. >> >> But Ted Ying's anti-windfall split ruling principle would >> mean that the NOS might or might not score +1400, depending >> solely on how ethical the OS were in avoiding use of UI. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard > >Someday, I'll be playing against someone who believes windfalls are >against the spirit of the game, and I make a stupid bid that gives >them a free +1400 or make a stupid defensive play that lets them make >a ridiculous slam, and they'll offer to give it back because they're >opposed to windfalls and they practice what they preach. Think >that'll happen? > >NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH . . . > Can you imagine me doing that at 5-00 per hundred? -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 12:04:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86237V04282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:03:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f86231H04278 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:03:02 +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 f861wuR09019 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:58:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00cd01c13677$66ab6040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200109052229.SAA00810@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 18:57:55 -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: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > >. However, the surely high trump(s) are > > played first, not last, just in case there is a "lurker." > > I don't think L70C allows playing the high trump early, in most cases. > > Consider declarer with AK, A, where the AK-suit is trumps. If declarer > claims with no statement, and the side ace is ruffable, don't we give > the defense a trick (unless there are special circumstances that make > 70C2 not apply)? That's okay with me, provided declarer is apparently unaware of an outstandding trumps and said nothing about it. But if declarer has AKx trumps, side ace, he will play AK first, then side ace. No one does otherwise unless everyone showed out on the second spade lead. At least, it has never happened at my table. That makes the play of the side ace first irrational, IMO. Isn't that how the AC ruled in Tenerife 41? Declarer had 10x of trumps left, played the high 10 and claimed. The AC said that playing both the 10 and x would be irrational, didn't they? Isn't that the origin of the "new" principle that trumps are played last? Not the 10x of trumps, but that little trump. > > If the principle "all trumps last unless stated otherwise" can be > established, it would allow objective judgment of at least some > claims. As such, it seems a big step in the right direction. I don't believe Grattan meant that literally, as he didn't think applying that principle to lower-level players was necessarily correct. That seems backwards. > > I think it's wrong to assume that lower-level players are stupid. > > I agree with that. It would be terrific if we could have general > principles by which all claims are judged. Start by going back to the 1975 Law 70 (then L69): ...and...and A trick could be lost to the trump by any normal play (including the careless or inferior, but not the irrational). Forget this "class of player" crapola. Okay, a simple general rule: High trumps played first unless there is an alternative losing line of play that would be reasonable in the Director's opinion. That is analogous to the ACBL rule for play of a suit: high cards first. 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 Sep 6 12:34:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f862XBF04307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:33:11 +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 f862X6H04303 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:33:06 +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 f862T0R14018 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010001c1367b$995d7240$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200109052333.QAA07360@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Spirit of The Game Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 19:21:03 -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 "John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Can you imagine me doing that at 5-00 per hundred? That's five pounds?? Let's see, a pound is worth about $1.50 now, so if I were to lose my standard 5000 points, that would be $37,500. No wonder John likes the Wood. I think I'll just play a pair game at the YC instead. That's 7.5 pounds ($11.25) for the entry fee, about all I can afford for an evening of bridge. For that price I expect an after-game buffet, or at least free beer. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California Off to London/Paris Sept 10-24 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 17:14:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f867DdU02513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:13:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f867DXH02509 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:13:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-57.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.57]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f8679Pj12504 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:09:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B961C9C.AC5484E3@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:37:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The bidding last night : RHO me LHO pn 1NT 2He pass 4He Dbl pass 3NT I tell LHO that I'll allow a correction to 4NT, but that partner will have to pass if he does. I even tell about lead penalties, and when having to play my contract, I apply them too. So what two mistakes did I make on that one ruling ? And I don't consider that treating 4NT as natural in this sequence is a mistake - these opponents would not know what 4NT meant in any case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 17:55:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f867sgJ02535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:54:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bassia.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-5.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.159]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f867sZH02530 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:54:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by bassia.wanadoo.fr; 6 Sep 2001 09:50:29 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.249.79.73) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 6 Sep 2001 09:49:55 +0200 Message-ID: <006101c136a8$60d286e0$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3B961C9C.AC5484E3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:48:37 +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 5.00.2615.200 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 To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling > The bidding last night : > > RHO me LHO pn > 1NT 2He pass 4He > Dbl pass 3NT > > I tell LHO that I'll allow a correction to 4NT, but that > partner will have to pass if he does. I even tell about lead > penalties, and when having to play my contract, I apply them > too. > > So what two mistakes did I make on that one ruling ? 1) Self-directing 2) As long as 3/4NT are non conventional bids, if the substitute bid is 4NT, there is no penalty i.e.RHO can bid. But, I think 4NT in this auction should show minors because of the pass over 2H. 3) The substitute bid can be 5/6/7 NT, not only 4! LHO can choose.He can bid anything else : 4C, 5D ... with other penalties. 4) I guess you give the right L26 penalty : first time RHO get the lead, you can forbid any single suit you want. 5) My ruling after that : 60 to opponents, something between 0 and 40 to you! Olivier. P.S. Who have the classification in Tobiano? P.P.S. I need Antonio's e-mail, if somebody can help me ... > > And I don't consider that treating 4NT as natural in this > sequence is a mistake - these opponents would not know what > 4NT meant in any case. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 17:55:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f867t2j02542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:55:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from apicra.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.155]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f867sqH02536 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:54:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mahonia.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by apicra.wanadoo.fr; 6 Sep 2001 09:50:30 +0200 Received: from fti3w7xxeu (193.249.79.73) by mahonia.wanadoo.fr; 6 Sep 2001 09:49:42 +0200 Message-ID: <006001c136a8$58ce3840$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> From: "Olivier BEAUVILLAIN" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3B961C9C.AC5484E3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:48:37 +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 5.00.2615.200 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 To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 2:37 PM Subject: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling > The bidding last night : > > RHO me LHO pn > 1NT 2He pass 4He > Dbl pass 3NT > > I tell LHO that I'll allow a correction to 4NT, but that > partner will have to pass if he does. I even tell about lead > penalties, and when having to play my contract, I apply them > too. > > So what two mistakes did I make on that one ruling ? 1) Self-directing 2) As long as 3/4NT are non conventional bids, if the substitute bid is 4NT, there is no penalty i.e.RHO can bid. But, I think 4NT in this auction should show minors because of the pass over 2H. 3) The substitute bid can be 5/6/7 NT, not only 4! LHO can choose.He can bid anything else : 4C, 5D ... with other penalties. 4) I guess you give the right L26 penalty : first time RHO get the lead, you can forbid any single suit you want. 5) My ruling after that : 60 to opponents, something between 0 and 40 to you! Olivier. P.S. Who have the classification in Tobiano? P.P.S. I need Antonio's e-mail, if somebody can help me ... > > And I don't consider that treating 4NT as natural in this > sequence is a mistake - these opponents would not know what > 4NT meant in any case. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 18:00:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86801N02567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:00:01 +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 f867xrH02555 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:59:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-77-74.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.77.74] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15eu0l-0001Sf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 08:55:43 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01c136a9$b0457740$4a4d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200109032242.SAA10364@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3B94A644.8CA311B3@village.uunet.be> <004d01c13635$c1aa13c0$c95a063e@dodona> <007e01c1364c$2e425cc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:38:44 +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 Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals > > > +=+ Memory tells me that we did limit the statement > > to players of a certain level of competence and above. > > I do not know what the corporate opinion would be in > > relation to players below that level.+=+ > > I think it's wrong to assume that lower-level players are > stupid. I can't imagine a duplicate player at any level > leading out a last trump that is not surely high before > cashing side tricks. > +=+ In the Case 41 a (good) player believed there was only one trump out against him, so he believed he had drawn all of opponents' trumps. Without expressing a personal opinion, I am told there are people who do not agree with you (given that we are bound to take into account the class of player involved if it affects the matter). ~ 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 Sep 6 18:00:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8680Bn02570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 18:00:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f867xsH02556 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:59:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-77-74.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.77.74] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15eu0n-0001Sf-00; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 08:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c136a9$b159a660$4a4d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Anne Jones" , "blml" References: <000b01c1362f$d7c10ac0$c95a063e@dodona> <009601c1363c$5fd4be00$0712ff3e@jones1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Homecoming Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 00:41:09 +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: blml Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Homecoming > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: > Cc: "Grattan Endicott" > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 6:24 PM > Subject: [BLML] Homecoming > > Congratulations Grattan on that coup. > Arriving in Manchester 4 hours before > you were due to leave Milan, and at a > time that DWS was probably still riding > around Italy on a train :-) > +=+ BA check-in volunteered the offer and no extra charge. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 20:48:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86AmEK07716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:48:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f86Am8H07712 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 20:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-175.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.175]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f86Ahx008860 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:43:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B9734F0.7EA4C27D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 10:33:52 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals References: <200109032242.SAA10364@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3B94A644.8CA311B3@village.uunet.be> <004d01c13635$c1aa13c0$c95a063e@dodona> <007e01c1364c$2e425cc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > > > > > 41: In a disputed-claim case, the AC stated a general > principle > > that if > > > > declarer believes his hand to be high, trumps are played last. > > While > > > > that seems quite reasonable to me, this is the first time I > have > > seen it > > > > stated. > > This can't be right, except in circumstances similar to Tenerife > Appeal 41. Declarer had a surely high trump, an honor, and a lower > trump that was not surely high if there was an outstanding trump > after cashing the high trump. Anyone in this situation would play > the lower trump last, of course, just in case, even when believing > that all trumps are gone. However, the surely high trump(s) are > played first, not last, just in case there is a "lurker." > > Well, but the player who thought that there was only one trump out (actually there were two) did not yet believe his hand to be high. We let him play the high trump first. Now he believes his hand to be high, and we've established that he shall now play other sutis first and trumps last. Exactly what you said, Marv, but there was no need to start your contribution with a negative. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 6 21:08:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86B8d308938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:08:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f86B8VH08913 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:08:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-127-251.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.127.251] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15ewxK-0004T9-00; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 12:04:22 +0100 Message-ID: <003501c136c3$9698bf40$fb7f01d5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200109052229.SAA00810@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00cd01c13677$66ab6040$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:01:27 +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: 06 September 2001 02:57 Subject: Re: [BLML] Tenerife appeals > > > > > If the principle "all trumps last unless stated > > otherwise" can be established, it would allow > > objective judgment of at least some claims. > >As such, it seems a big step in the right direction. > > I don't believe Grattan meant that literally, as he > didn't think applying that principle to lower-level > players was necessarily correct. That seems > backwards. > +=+ To clarify: trumps last when declarer thinks the hand is high. In Tenerife he did not think so until after he had drawn what he thought was the only trump that remained with opponents. As to lower order players: I have expressed no personal opinion. The TAC in Tenerife qualified its decision by reference to the class of player involved. It is perhaps required by law to do so. It passed no comment below a certain level and that question is unanswered in the EBL at this time. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > I think it's wrong to assume that lower-level > > > players are stupid. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 7 00:15:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86EEH926774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:14:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f86EEAH26750 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:14:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-219.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.219]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f86EA2004746 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 16:10:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3B975902.DCC6269@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 13:07:46 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling References: <3B961C9C.AC5484E3@village.uunet.be> <006101c136a8$60d286e0$b18afea9@fti3w7xxeu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Olivier BEAUVILLAIN wrote: > > > > > So what two mistakes did I make on that one ruling ? > 1) Self-directing That's not a mistake on the ruling - that's just the club unwilling to pay me - so I insist on playing - and there's no one else to direct. > 2) As long as 3/4NT are non conventional bids, if the substitute bid is 4NT, > there is no penalty i.e.RHO can bid. But, I think 4NT in this auction should > show minors because of the pass over 2H. As I said, these players would not have a clue. I don't consider that a mistake. And my partner has since told me that LHO did double over 2He. > 3) The substitute bid can be 5/6/7 NT, not only 4! LHO can choose.He can bid > anything else : 4C, 5D ... with other penalties. Let's assume I said something like 4NT or higher. > 4) I guess you give the right L26 penalty : first time RHO get the lead, you > can forbid any single suit you want. I forbad spades, a suit I had no problem in, just in the hope he would lead spades on his next occasion. He didn't. > 5) My ruling after that : 60 to opponents, something between 0 and 40 to > you! You've spotted the second mistake, but without spotting the first one, I don't think you could claim director's error. > Olivier. > P.S. Who have the classification in Tobiano? > P.P.S. I need Antonio's e-mail, if somebody can help me ... > > > > And I don't consider that treating 4NT as natural in this > > sequence is a mistake - these opponents would not know what > > 4NT meant in any case. > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Sep 7 00:21:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86ELl128658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:21:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f86ELfH28654 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP7.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.7]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10418 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:17:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:17:55 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3B961C9C.AC5484E3@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]De la part de hermandw@village.uunet.be Envoye : 5 septembre, 2001 08:38 A : bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Objet : [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling The bidding last night : RHO me LHO pn 1NT 2He pass 4He Dbl pass 3NT I tell LHO that I'll allow a correction to 4NT, but that partner will have to pass if he does. I even tell about lead penalties, and when having to play my contract, I apply them too. So what two mistakes did I make on that one ruling ? ________________________________________________________ I think you must first apply Law 27A and ask LHO (your pn if he accepts the inufficient bid. If no, the "conventional" insufficient can bid must be replace by any legal bid or P (not XX) but his pd has to Pass for the rest of the auction. I know, an insufficient bid cannot be a convention (strictu sensus) but 4NT can be...in case of doubt it is..? As to lead penalties ?? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 7 00:56:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86EuUC28678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:56:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe55.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.211]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f86EuPH28674 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 00:56:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:52:14 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.7] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3B961C9C.AC5484E3@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:46:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2001 14:52:14.0886 (UTC) FILETIME=[84571460:01C136E3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:37 AM Subject: [BLML] Two mistakes on one ruling | The bidding last night : | | RHO me LHO pn | 1NT 2He pass 4He | Dbl pass 3NT | | I tell LHO that I'll allow a correction to 4NT, but that | partner will have to pass if he does. I even tell about lead | penalties, and when having to play my contract, I apply them | too. | | So what two mistakes did I make on that one ruling ? | | And I don't consider that treating 4NT as natural in this | sequence is a mistake - these opponents would not know what | 4NT meant in any case. | | -- | Herman DE WAEL Let me see. The words 'allow a correction'. suggests there is no alternative available to 4N. A very misleading statement. Anyway- With so much passage of time it is L27 that applies which says that LHO condones 3N if he calls. And if he does not condone then 3N is cancelled and a legal call must be substituted [but not double or redouble]. Thereafter the partner must pass except when 3N and the correction [to 4N only] are both unconventional- in which case the auction then proceeds without penalty. And there is the bit from L23 and possible lead penalties. Leaving all this out [and most especially suggesting there is no alternative available to 4N] seems to leave open the door that the offenders may be damaged by the misleading statements of Second Hand. And if so it should be appropriate to apply L21. Also- A responder that can play 4N instead of partner's penalty of 4H? I can construct thousands of hands that will collect a higher score in 4HX than 4N {to play}while there is difficulty in the reverse. No, it is highly likely that the intention of 4N is conventional in nature [eg. minor oriented]. The law specifies incontrovertibly non conventional. Without facts I would not be willing to stipulate HDW's assertion that 4N is not conventional due to the belief this pair would not know what it was. 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 Sep 7 01:16:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f86FGFQ28702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:16:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f86FG8H28698 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 01:16:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-68-98.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.68.98] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15f0ot-000175-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:11:55 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c136e6$2c009c20$6244063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Encrypted Signals Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 15:41:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott