From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 00:35:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UEXeM27596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f8UEXSH27583 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-55-42.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.55.42] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15nha0-000I5E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:28:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:54:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > > "Based on a partnership understanding" means > "supported by a partnership understanding" to > me. Law 73E puts it better, using "protected by": > +=+ It is not merely the question of 'protected by'. ["Based on" = 'founded, built or constructed on a given base'.] The prohibition is against making a call founded on an undisclosed partnership understanding; 73E is concerned with a rather different aspect - the element of protection for the deceiver - whilst 40A is concerned with the rights of opponents to know. +=+ > > "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive > an opponent through a call or play (so long as the > deception is not protected by concealed partnership > understanding or experience)." > > If I am fairly sure that my partner has psyched, then > (even if that knowledge is not drawn from the auction's > logic), I need not disclose the psych possibility if there > is nothing I can do to put that knowledge to use (i.e., to >"protect" the psych). If the auction's logic clearly says > "psych," then of course I can do anything I wish, with > no disclosure, because the psych has not been > "protected by concealed partnership understanding." > +=+ This is a flawed interpretation of the law. If, in recognizing partner's psyche, you draw knowledge from a concealed partnership understanding - knowledge mutually shared and not available to opponents - your partnership has violated Law 40A by failing to disclose that knowledge beforehand. More accurately, in fact, it is your partner who violates Law 40A by making such a call when the partnership understanding has not been made known in advance of the occurrence. It needs to be understood that opponents are absolutely entitled to prior knowledge of such an understanding for their benefit, nothing to do with the separate issue of any protection in it for your side; they are to be put in a position to use that knowledge. +======================+ Whilst addressing the subject, somewhere a question was raised as to the significance of the English phrase 'fielding a psyche'. Let me see if I can help. The basic notion is taken from certain athletic sports - baseball and cricket are mentioned; it means to catch or stop the ball and return it after it has been hit by the batter/batsman. Usage then adapts the phrase to mean 'deal with', as with a sensitive issue, a problem, a telephone call. Dealing with something in this sense normally implies an awareness of its existence. So in bridge we refer to 'fielding' when the partner picks up the inferences of a call and makes use of them in turn. When, as a matter of bridge judgement, the indications of fielding are strong, the evidence is taken as a demonstration that the action of the players is based on a partnership understanding. Where the prior call violated the disclosed partnership agreements the conclusion drawn is that the partners have based their actions collusively and illegally upon an undisclosed understanding. There may be defence to this charge by substantiating that in the particular instance the normal implications do not apply (which is not easily demonstrated in a sceptical world). On the other hand, I would say it calls for competent bridge judgement to establish that the strength of evidence is sufficient to overcome any doubt ensuing from its circumstantial nature. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 00:35:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UEXfB27597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f8UEXVH27589 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-55-42.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.55.42] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15nha4-000I5E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:28:32 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c149bc$9c7cfa00$2a377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200109300106.VAA23869@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:29:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 2:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double revoke > It seems sensible to make the two cases parallel, > although the revoke rules are sufficiently complex > that one can imagine anything. I suppose the laws > ought to say something explicit about revokes by > both sides, but they don't now. In practice, the > situation is rare. > +=+ I will add this to the heap of subjects for the General Review of the Laws+=+ > > > Next I would like to revert to the (real) case of the > > Kalmthout revoke, that I posted some years ago: > > > > Defender ruffs (revoking), and declarer overruffs > > (also revoking). Declarer makes all subsequent tricks. > > > > There was a (non-complete) consensus at the time > > that declarer should transfer 2 tricks to defenders, > > but that he gets one back from the revoke from > > defender (who has now made tricks that can be > > transferred). > > I agree with that with the qualification that we need > to check L64C. > +=+ I was doing some deleting when I chanced on this. I had not taken interest previously in what seemed a mundane query for a TD to answer. That declarer is to transfer two tricks to defenders seems transparent. It is the second revoke that needs study. Reading Law 64 I note two features: 1. That the declarer's tricks are 'transferred' to the defenders. Such tricks are transferred 'after play ceases'. They have not been won in the play. 2. In view of Law 64B1 there is a need to settle whether defender has won any tricks within the meaning of 64B1. If the Director rules that two tricks must be transferred, is this the same as saying they are two tricks 'won' by the defender? I recall no authority on this and, although not the subject of infinite meditation, my opinion is that Laws 44 E & F define how a trick is 'won'. 3. But one question - will it help to look for any reference to winning tricks in Law 77? No luck - this law is al about fulfilling and making, so no help there. Worthy of a minute or two in the WBFLC, maybe? (My meditation did take a brief lateral journey to ask how to determine what card had 'won' a transferred trick if, in some other situation, this becomes this an issue.) ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 00:35:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UEXek27595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f8UEXRH27582 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:33:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-55-42.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.55.42] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15nhZu-000I5E-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:28:27 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c149bc$96c29b60$2a377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 08:55:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 2:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > >. Whilst I have mild reservations > > about the statement, it does make a serious > > attempt to grasp the nettle, clearly intending > > to allow genuine psychics (where partner has > > no advantage over opponents in anticipating > > them) > > This is an ambiguous ending. Does it mean > partner is not more likely to anticipate a psych > than the opponents, or that partner has no > advantage in the auction despite having a > greater anticipation of the psych? > +=+ Sorry, it can be read two ways I agree. The statement intends that partner must not be at an advantage in the auction because he is better able to anticipate the possibility of a psychic, having the benefit of partnership understanding not disclosed to opponents. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 00:35:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UEZYq27621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:35:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f8UEZNH27605 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:35:23 +1000 (EST) Received: by GARFIELD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:27:54 +0100 Message-ID: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463B34FD@GARFIELD> From: anna@ecats.co.uk To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] More News of the world championships Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:27:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f8UEZPH27606 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I sent this on Friday, but it seems it didn't get through for some reason ...so if you get it twice, my apologies The following statement has been released by the President of the World Bridge Federation and I thought you might be interested: We are pleased that we have been able to arrange a venue for the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup, Senior Bowl and World Transnational Open teams at the French Bridge Federation building in Paris on very nearly the same dates as those originally scheduled. We need to have some flexibility (of at least one day), since the equipment is still at sea and has to be returned to Paris. Teams participating in the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup and Seniors Bowl can arrange to arrive in Paris on Saturday 20th October in order to start play either on Sunday 21st or Monday 22nd with the Round Robin ending and the Knock Out phase starting either on Saturday 27th or Sunday 28th October. The Transnational Teams will start on either Sunday 28th or Monday 29th October and the Championships will thus end on Saturday 3rd November instead of Friday 2nd. We have managed to arrange an excellent four star hotel situated about 10 minutes walk from the Arc-de-Triomphe and the Champs-Elysées for all the participants at a very good rate (even less expensive than Bali), but it is important that all the participants stay in this hotel so that we can arrange shuttles between the hotel and the playing area. José Damiani President, World Bridge Federation 28 September 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 1 02:53:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UGqbt11471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:52:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8UGqVH11467 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:52:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15njkd-000MDu-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:47:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:05:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding - Action apparently designed to give the >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against pair >or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs used >merely to create action at the table. >######### > >I interpret the last to mean: >d. (?) I don't understand what "create action at the table" means. I think it means that if you are bored with your 33% session, it is against the Proprieties to psyche just because you feel like a little fun. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 03:55:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UHt2i16767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 03:55:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8UHsuH16750 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 03:54:57 +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 f8UHo4w01811 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006101c149d8$40fd7300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:45:09 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > "Based on a partnership understanding" means > > "supported by a partnership understanding" to > > me. Law 73E puts it better, using "protected by": > > > +=+ It is not merely the question of 'protected by'. > ["Based on" = 'founded, built or constructed on > a given base'.] The prohibition is against making > a call founded on an undisclosed partnership > understanding; 73E is concerned with a rather > different aspect - the element of protection > for the deceiver - whilst 40A is concerned with > the rights of opponents to know. +=+ "Founded on," "based on," and "supported by" are all synonymous to me, and "protected by" nearly so. > > > > "A player may appropriately attempt to deceive > > an opponent through a call or play (so long as the > > deception is not protected by concealed partnership > > understanding or experience)." > > > > If I am fairly sure that my partner has psyched, then > > (even if that knowledge is not drawn from the auction's > > logic), I need not disclose the psych possibility if there > > is nothing I can do to put that knowledge to use (i.e., to > >"protect" the psych). If the auction's logic clearly says > > "psych," then of course I can do anything I wish, with > > no disclosure, because the psych has not been > > "protected by concealed partnership understanding." > > > +=+ This is a flawed interpretation of the law. If, in > recognizing partner's psyche, you draw knowledge from > a concealed partnership understanding - knowledge > mutually shared and not available to opponents - your > partnership has violated Law 40A by failing to disclose > that knowledge beforehand. More accurately, in fact, it > is your partner who violates Law 40A by making such a > call when the partnership understanding has not been > made known in advance of the occurrence. > It needs to be understood that opponents are > absolutely entitled to prior knowledge of such an > understanding for their benefit, nothing to do with the > separate issue of any protection in it for your side; > they are to be put in a position to use that knowledge. Let's get specific. Suppose I am playing with John Probst in an ACBL NABC, and the only agreements we reach are those needed to fill out the CC. On the first board I open 1H, LHO doubles, John bids 1S, and RHO doubles (business). I hold four spades myself, and am therefore certain that John has psyched. Must I Alert the 1S bid? Or must we pre-Alert that John has a reputation for psyching? Obviously not, since the psych is not based on a partnership understanding. Now, after a number of sessions I find that he has committed the same psych on numerous occasions. Has partnership experience established a concealed partnership understanding? I have gained nothing of value from the partnership experience, provided I raise spades with a raising hand when 1S is not doubled for business. Is the psych now "based on" a concealed partnership understanding? I say no. Now, if John had said, "Never raise my major suit responses made over an opposing takeout double," or if I decided on my own not to do so because of partnership experience, that would be different. The understanding would have to be disclosed, since it is now based on, supported by, protected by, and founded on, a partnership agreement. Are we agreed so far? If so, all we have to do is find where the line is drawn. By the way, does this mean you support the disclosure of psych frequency as a Pre-Alert (or on the CC)? Or would you prefer Alerting each of partner's bids that might be a pscyh? Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 04:05:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UI54L18173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 04:05:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8UI4wH18162 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 04:04:58 +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 f8UI06w07492 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 11:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:57:10 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding - Action apparently designed to give the > >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against pair > >or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and psychs used > >merely to create action at the table. > >######### > > > >I interpret the last to mean: > > >d. (?) I don't understand what "create action at the table" means. > > I think it means that if you are bored with your 33% session, it is > against the Proprieties to psyche just because you feel like a little > fun. > Exactly right, I'm sure. Thank you. Even psych enthusiasts surely must agree that the ACBL's stance on unsportsmanlike psychs is not unreasonable, even though its legality is somewhat suspect. Note that violations are not automatically penalized, but psychers accused of being unsportsmanlike must defend their actions in the face of an assumption of guilt. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 05:01:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UJ0sT26936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 05:00:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8UJ0mH26920 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 05:00:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8UIsiH28655; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:54:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 14:55:26 -0400 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >but >psychers accused of being unsportsmanlike must defend their actions in the >face of an assumption of guilt. Why do I find this idea so very, very repugnant? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO7dqvL2UW3au93vOEQL8LgCbBcZyDjLqbTtndlgUK0e2qcUfxF8AoM5F iN3/6AUKYV4xMeGaNzFUHSsa =ZeFo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 06:50:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UKneX09119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 06:49:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f8UKnYH09115 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 06:49:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15nnS0-000AXQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:44:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:34:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> <006101c149d8$40fd7300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006101c149d8$40fd7300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Let's get specific. Suppose I am playing with John Probst in an ACBL NABC, >and the only agreements we reach are those needed to fill out the CC. On the >first board I open 1H, LHO doubles, John bids 1S, and RHO doubles >(business). I hold four spades myself, and am therefore certain that John >has psyched. Must I Alert the 1S bid? Or must we pre-Alert that John has a >reputation for psyching? Obviously not, since the psych is not based on a >partnership understanding. > >Now, after a number of sessions I find that he has committed the same psych >on numerous occasions. Has partnership experience established a concealed >partnership understanding? I have gained nothing of value from the >partnership experience, provided I raise spades with a raising hand when 1S >is not doubled for business. Is the psych now "based on" a concealed >partnership understanding? I say no. Whether you gain from the partnership experience or not does not affect whether you have such experience. You have an understanding now. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 08:35:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f8UMZ6R27603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:35:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f8UMYxH27585 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:35:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 20427 invoked by uid 50005); 30 Sep 2001 22:26:32 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4162. . Clean. Processed in 0.110345 secs); 30 Sep 2001 22:26:32 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 30 Sep 2001 22:26:32 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 18:30:07 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:57:10 -0700, Marv French wrote: >Even psych enthusiasts surely must agree that the ACBL's stance on >unsportsmanlike psychs is not unreasonable, even though its legality is >somewhat suspect. Note that violations are not automatically penalized, but >psychers accused of being unsportsmanlike must defend their actions in the >face of an assumption of guilt. > I'm not a member of the ACBL, nor am I likely to be come one at any time in the future. However, if your last sentence is correct, Marv, I for one will say that I definitely do *NOT* "agree that the ACBL"s stance on unsportsmanlike psychs is not unreasonable", purely as a matter of principle. Saying (in effect) that someone has broken the rules unless they can prove that they haven't is totally out of order, IMHO, particularly when the action in question borders on the area of the player's ethics. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 13:35:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f913YOX07760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:34:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f913YIH07756 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:34:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP17.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.17]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA29291 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:29:22 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: Subject: [BLML] Law 25 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:30:37 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, I try desperately to improve my flow chart on Law 25 but it is a nightmare... The more I read this Law, the less I am sure!! Let me give some examples: 1) N E 1S 2C Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and says: I wanted to bid 2D but I took the wrong bidding card. Inadvertent, no pause for thought. A clear application of 25A. E bid 2D that's it that's all. 2) N E S 1S 2C P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and says: I wanted to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding card. Inadvertent, no pause for thought. Partner has not yet called. 25A again IMHO. E can bid 2D without penalty. Does S can change his call. Nothing in Law 25A about it? 3) N E S W 1S 2C P P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and says: I wanted to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding card. Inadvertent, no pause for thought. Partner has already called. Too late for 25A. 25B applies (see 4). 4) N E 1S X Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and says I wanted to bid 2D. TD deems that it is not a mechanical error. Law 25B applies. S can accept 2D and the auction proceeds without penalty (25B1). If S does not, E can X but W has to P for 1 round (25B2b1). If E wants to bid something else the infamous 25B2b2 applies and X is UI to W (is X a silly mistake ?). 5) N E S 1S X P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and says: I wanted to bid 2D. TD deems that it is not a mechanical error. LHO has bid. It is too late to apply 25B. IMHO the X stands. 2D UI for W. 6) N E S 1S X no 2D P TD is called at that moment and deems that it is not a mechanical error. Law 25B applies. If the TD determines that S bid on the X, 2D stands without penalty, but S can change his call and 16C2 applies (25B1). If S intended to P on 2D ?? Nothing in 25B1 about that... I suppose Law 11A applies and auction proceeds without penalty. Please help me to find mistakes and add examples. IMHO, Law 25 was written when spoken bids was the standard. Then, I think the TD was most often called after a player had changed his call and the text seems to reflect that realty. With bidding boxes, the TD is more often called by a player who realizes his mistake but did not yet try to change his call. IMHO, this Law needs a complete revision. 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 Mon Oct 1 17:10:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9179s603470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:09:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9179mH03466 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:09:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.85]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9174pT04171 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:04:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BB49D84.900BE492@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:55:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] VP scale References: <3BB46B9E.7040902@interia.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > Hi all, > > Lukasz Slawinski, the creator of the Strong Pass systems, proposed > recently a change in the VP scale. Let's take a look at the presnent > VP scale for the 24-board match: > > 0-3 15:15 > 4-9 16:14 > 10-14 17:13 > 15-19 18:12 > 20-24 19:11 > 25-29 20:10 > 30-34 21:9 > 35-39 22:8 > 40-45 23:7 > 46-51 24:6 > 52-57 25:5 > 58-64 25:4 > 65-71 25:3 > 72-79 25:2 > 80-87 25:1 > 88+ 25:0 > > Slawinski constructed a formula that approximates all used VP scales for > arbitrary number of deals: > > VP = 15 + (33 * S) / (25 * SqD + S) > > where > > S = saldo (the difference between IMPs won and lost) > SqD = a square root from the number of deals > I also made a formula once, and it looked like this, but I can't find it quickly now. > The present system of converting IMPs to VPs for a given > number of boards takes into account only the difference > between IMPs lost and won. However - winning a > 24-board match 30 : 10 IMPs is more valuable that > 50 : 30 IMPs or, say, 160 : 140 IMPs. The former > is a good win; the latter looks very much like a draw. > Yet all these results are converted to 19:11 VPs > at present. > Not really. Is winning a football match 6-5 a draw ? > Slawinski's proposal is to use the following formula > for IMPs to VPs conversion: > > VP = 15 + (9 * S) / ( 6*SqD + L ) > > S = saldo (the difference between IMPs won and lost) > SqD = a square root from the number of deals > L = IMPs lost by winners > > So for a 24-board match won by 20 IMPs we get: > > 20:0 21:9 > 30:10 20:10 > 40:20 19:11 > 50:30 18:12 > 70:50 17:13 > 160:140 16:14 > > Any comments? > Yes, one. When two teams of careful bidders meet, they don't bid any slams, and the result is 20-0 IMP, because one of them plays better. Now change the winning team to one of more adventurous nature, who bid two slams on a finesse, one of which wins. So the result is instead 32-12 IMP. If that result brings in less VP than the first one, you are actually saying that bidding 50% small slams is no longer a break-even. That changes the nature of the game of bridge and should therefor not be introduced. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 21:08:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91B7a811023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:07:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91B7TH11019 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:07:30 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA06731; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:02:35 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Oct 01 13:00:30 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K8ZKFPR3P80000Q4@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:02:21 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:02:26 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:02:09 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25 To: "'Laval Dubreuil'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi BLMLrs, > > I try desperately to improve my flow chart on Law 25 but it > is a nightmare... The more I read this Law, the less I am sure!! > > Let me give some examples: > > 1) N E > 1S 2C Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and says: > I wanted to bid 2D but I took the wrong bidding card. > Inadvertent, no pause for thought. A clear application of 25A. > E bid 2D that's it that's all. RIGHT > > 2) N E S > 1S 2C P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment > and says: I wanted to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding card. > Inadvertent, no pause for thought. Partner has not yet called. > 25A again IMHO. E can bid 2D without penalty. > Does S can change his call. Before allowing to change his call the TD should tell S to pick up his pass. South then can make any call he wants. If he does not pass the information from that withdrawn call is unauthorized for opponents. Nothing in Law 25A about it? indeed > > 3) N E S W > 1S 2C P P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that > moment and says: I wanted to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding > card. Inadvertent, no pause for thought. > Partner has already called. Too late for 25A. 25B applies (see 4). Last remark is WRONG: 25B does not apply, since LHO has called already. The auction continues and E should be penalized for creating UI by telling that he wanted to bid 2D. > > 4) N E > 1S X Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and > says I wanted to bid 2D. TD deems that it is not a mechanical > error. Law 25B applies. > S can accept 2D and the auction proceeds without penalty (25B1). > If S does not, E can X but W has to P for 1 round (25B2b1). > If E wants to bid something else the infamous 25B2b2 applies > and X is UI to W (is X a silly mistake ?). It doesn't matter whether X is a silly mistake or not, he may change it udner 25B. > > 5) N E S > 1S X P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment and > says: I wanted to bid 2D. TD deems that it is not a mechanical > error. LHO has bid. It is too late to apply 25B. > IMHO the X stands. 2D UI for W. most is right but overall the answer is wrong. If E bids 2D this is a BOOT when it is partner's turn to call and L31B applies. If he tells that he wanted to bid 2D he should get a severe penalty and we have to deal with UI. > > 6) N E S > 1S X no 2D P TD is called at that moment and deems that > it is not a mechanical error. Law 25B applies. > If the TD determines that S bid on the X, 2D stands without > penalty, but S can change his call and 16C2 applies (25B1). > If S intended to P on 2D ?? Nothing in 25B1 about that... WRONG, 25B1 starts with: the substituted call may be accepted... and that is exactly what happens when the pass is made after and on the 2D bid. > I suppose Law 11A applies and auction proceeds without penalty. L11 does not apply, or better: there is no need to use L11. ton > > Please help me to find mistakes and add examples. > > IMHO, Law 25 was written when spoken bids was the standard. Then, > I think the TD was most often called after a player had changed his > call and the text seems to reflect that realty. With bidding boxes, > the TD is more often called by a player who realizes his mistake but > did not yet try to change his call. IMHO, this Law needs a complete > revision. > > 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 Mon Oct 1 21:52:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Bq0Y11047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:52:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91BpsH11043 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:51:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA04678; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:45:54 +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 NAA18037; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:46:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <002c01c14a6f$61af7ac0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928080001.00ab5ce0@127.0.0.1> <3BB46FF0.B2EF05C8@village.uunet.be> <008701c14851$797758a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:51:17 +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 ----- > > CC have led me to a conclusion I should have arrived at long ago: As with > partner's degree of bidding aggressiveness, falsecarding proclivity, etc., > psych frequency *per se* is not a matter for disclosure. AG : IBTD. You have to write something specific on your CC (the WBF model and many others) if you regularly make wild overcalls, trash preempts, light openings, or to the contrary if you follow a policy of very sound openings and overcalls. See the general instructions on how to complete the CC (in "Convention Card Program") for examples. Boxes like "general style" for overcalls are made for this. When Gilles opens a 1st-in-hand NV 3-bid in a minor, I alert, and upon asking I explain that such a bid may be made on absolute trash. I think the opponents are entitled to such an information, because I have it (L75C, "knowledge of partner"). As for falsecarding proclivity, in a former partnership, we had the agreement "all signals off against suit slams except count on the lead of the King", which is the same as "falsecarding 50% of time against slams". That had to be told to the opponents, and duly was. That doesn't mean > there are no disclosable partnership agreements regarding pscyhs, only that > a reasonable frequency is not a "special" agreement, and it is only special > partnership agreements that must be disclosed (L75). AG : no, you have to disclose whatever you know of partnership style (L75C). 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 Oct 1 22:08:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91C7qr11739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:07:52 +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 f91C7jH11707 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:07:46 +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 NAA03281; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:59:31 +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 OAA01684; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:02:45 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-ID: <008e01c14a71$98a514c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Reply-To: "Alain Gottcheiner" From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:07:09 +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 ----- > > b. Psychs made against top contenders [not merely "stronger opposition"] > that would not be made against one's peers AG : that would, however, constitute plausible tactics : you think you are condemned to a very bad score if nothing happens, so you attempt to create a swing. You feel this will maximise your gain expectancy, which is what you should always be attempting to do. If this includes a psyche that you would not bother to make against a pair which you are able to cope with, what's wrong with that ? > d. (?) I don't understand what "create action at the table" means. AG : psyching only to make things funnier by creating an unexpected situation, no with the aim of bettering your score. Best Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 22:17:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91CGTQ13751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:16:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91CGNH13725 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:16:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15o1ut-000HA2-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:11:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 01:47:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Even psych enthusiasts surely must agree that the ACBL's stance on >unsportsmanlike psychs is not unreasonable, even though its legality is >somewhat suspect. Note that violations are not automatically penalized, but >psychers accused of being unsportsmanlike must defend their actions in the >face of an assumption of guilt. People do not agree on ethics. Is it sportsmanlike to psyche against a beginner? No, ok, no problem. Now, how do you define a beginner? I opened a Spanish spade against the club TD in Blundellsands about a year ago. He gave me a lecture about psyching against beginners, to which I naturally replied that I did not consider him one. He pointed out he meant his partner. I told him to stop being so insulting to her. She is one of my regular partners in that club, and has not qualified as a "beginner" for the last three years. OK, so what is the point of all this? The point is that you do not start at the position that you need to defend your actions because you are assumed to be in the wrong. It is not an acceptable method. Especially in such a fraught thing as the details of what is unsportsmanlike. It is very easy to agree what is unsportsmanlike in theory but extremely difficult to define it in practice. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 22:21:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91CLgX15021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:21:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91CLZH14992 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:21:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f91CGd707389 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011001080636.00ab7920@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:16:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <001301c14869$9e54ad40$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928080001.00ab5ce0@127.0.0.1> <3BB46FF0.B2EF05C8@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928163623.00affad0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:04 PM 9/28/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" < > > > > I believe that's out of date. Originally (around the time of the > > infamous Oakie article) the League banned psychic controls along with > > excessive, frivolous or unsportsmanlike (read "any" -- it's not hard to > > find ACBLers, in particular on the Board of Directors, who believe that > > any psyching whatsoever is "unsportsmanlike" per se) psychs. Later > > they added the ban against having any agreements, explicit or implicit, > > regarding psyching or bidding after a psych; this was even more > > effective in ridding their games of those nasty things. > >Please cite the source for this statement, I can't find it. > > > They removed the boxes because they could no longer legally be used; > > anything you could possibly write in those boxes constituted an illegal > > agreement regarding psychs. The rule is stated quite clearly as > > applying to all, not just "special", agreements. > >What rule is that, and where can it be found? I can't cite my source, but it was in an article in the ACBL Bulletin some while back. I am aware that Mr. Blaiss and others at the ACBL have repeatedly stated that what is published in the Bulletin (even without any disclaimer), except for the official proceedings of the BoD, does not represent the League's official policy, notwithstanding the Bulletin's explicit claim to being the official publication of the ACBL. So the "rule" I cite may not officially exist, but, as I have written before, if it appears without disclaimer in the Bulletin, it is accepted as official by the vast majority of ACBL members, including TDs (as why shouldn't it be? -- most ACBL members, unlike Marv, do not check directly with Mr. Blaiss when some suspect "rule" is announced in the pages of the Bulletin), and thus exists de facto, whether officially acknowledged or not. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 22:48:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91CmQj20210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 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 stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91CmLH20206 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:48:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f91ChPC40240 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:43:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011001082505.00b013b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:42:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:30 PM 9/29/01, Grattan wrote: > How often are appeals in Zone 2 concerned >with actual or purported psychics?- and what do >they establish about the policy? It is my impression that there are, relatively, very few appeals concerned with psychs. It is also my impression that that's because (compared to the rest of the world, at least) there are very few psychs. Whatever the "official" ACBL policy may be, the ACBL has been on a thirty-year or so campaign to convince its players that psychs are (a) somehow "shady" or "unsportsmanlike" despite being technically legal, and (b) losing tactics. To the extent that the ACBL's implicit "policy" can be seen as working towards the eventual total elimination of psychs from its games, it has been extremely successful. Personally, I'm a conservative guy who doesn't like to psych (I tend to agree with (b) above). My view on psyching, like my view on complex artificial methods, is that they're not for me. But others obviously disagree, and there is no reason whatsoever why the consequences of my own personal views should, just because most of those in power at the ACBL agree with me, be imposed on those others. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 1 23:27:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91DR5d27437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:27:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91DR0H27433 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 23:27:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f91DM3o59831 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:22:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011001085214.00b01800@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:21:37 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:16 PM 9/29/01, Marv wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > > > > > I have seen instructions (apparently written for club > > > managers and directors) explaining that anyone > > > who psychs against stronger opposition can be > > > considered to be disrupting the contest, and anyone > > > who psychs against weaker opposition can be > > > considered to be taking unsportsmanlike advantage. > >The only document I know of that is aimed at club managers and >directors is >*Duplicate Decisions*, subtitled "A Club Director's Guide for Ruling >at the >Table." I suspect it contains what you refer to, but it looks like your >memory is faulty. Not "weaker opposition," for instance, and not "stronger >opposition." The practices to be dealt with are: I believe Marv is right that this is the document I had seen and was referring to. >######## >Excessive Psychic Bidding - suggested (but not confirmed) by three or more >psychs in a single session. It's up to the players to show that they >happened, this once, to pick up a string of hands unusually >appropriate for >psychs. [hence, not automatically an infraction - mlf] > >Frivolous Psychic Bidding - inspired by a spirit of malicious mischief or >lack of will to win may be interpreted as frivolous. > >Unsportsmanlike Psychic Bidding - Action apparently designed to give the >opponents an abnormal opportunity to get a good score, psychs against pair >or teams in contention, psychs against inexperienced players and >psychs used >merely to create action at the table. >######### > >I interpret the last to mean: > >a. Hopeless psychs apparently aimed at helping, not hurting, the >opposition >(e.g., vulnerable first-seat 3 bid opening with a 10xxxxx suit and >zero HCP. > >b. Psychs made against top contenders [not merely "stronger opposition"] >that would not be made against one's peers > >c. Psychs against very weak players [not merely "weaker opposition"] > >d. (?) I don't understand what "create action at the table" means. In common parlance, it means to take an action designed to prevent the subsequent bidding (or play) from taking what would otherwise be its normal or expected course. *Any* psych, by definition, is an attempt "to create action at the table". So the only thing that stands between the policy and an absolute prohibition against psyching is the word "merely". This means that you must not be merely trying to disturb the action, but must have some reasonably based expectation that you will gain on balance by doing so -- which overlooks the fact that you might well believe that simply disturbing the action, without any specific scenario in mind in which you will gain thereby, is likely to be to your advantage. And if one believes, as most of the ACBL membership now does, largely as a result of the Bulletin's propaganda campaign to that effect, that psyching is a long-run losing strategy, then the "merely" can always be overlooked as effectively redundant. It is obvious to me that armed with the above-stated policy even a minimally creative TD will be able to find a way to rule against any psych whatsoever. I hadn't recalled, and am amazed and disturbed by, the policy's explicit prohibition against "psychs against pairs or teams in contention". How can one possibly know (by legal means) when when sits down against some unknown opposing pair or team whether or not they are "in contention"? Is this the cleverest way yet of insuring that no one will ever psych? How can you, if you may be violating the law prima facie depending on how well your opponents are doing in the event? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 00:39:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91EbvI12163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:37:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 f91EbkH12127 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:37:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-97-42.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.97.42] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15o47b-000PqS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:32:39 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c14a85$c3c296a0$2a61063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> <006101c149d8$40fd7300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:30:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 30 September 2001 18:45 Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > +=+ I have not commented on anything you wrote above this line. You are too knowledgeable to really believe what you say, so I know you are just winding me up. ------------------------------------------------------------------ However, a word or two should be entered below this line, not for your benefit Marv but so that your sense of humour does not lead astray any innocent who happens to be eavesdropping. +=+ > > Let's get specific. Suppose I am playing with John > Probst in an ACBL NABC, and the only agreements > we reach are those needed to fill out the CC. On the > first board I open 1H, LHO doubles, John bids 1S, > and RHO doubles (business). I hold four spades > myself, and am therefore certain that John has > psyched. Must I Alert the 1S bid? Or must we > pre-Alert that John has a reputation for psyching? > Obviously not, since the psych is not based on a > partnership understanding. > +=+ The first time it happens there can be no partnership understanding unless you have discussed it, or possibly both have knowledge of some extraneous situation that points to the possibility. Of course, if you had specified this as a type of psyche that may occur the joker in the crypt could be RHO who has doubled without Spades to confuse you. +=+ > > Now, after a number of sessions I find that he has > committed the same psych on numerous occasions. > Has partnership experience established a concealed > partnership understanding? I have gained nothing of > value from the partnership experience, provided I raise > spades with a raising hand when 1S is not doubled for > business. Is the psych now "based on" a concealed > partnership understanding? I say no. > +=+ Well you are just plain wrong. It matters nothing what you have gained. It matters nothing that you raise the suit 'with a raising hand when 1S is not doubled'. You have a duty, beyond all argument, to inform opponents in advance of the partnership experience which, after 'numerous' occasions, has become indisputably an implicit understanding. It is a matter of bridge judgement how few occasions over what period of time are enough to establish the implicit understanding - see CoP. Your opponents are entitled in law to know about the understanding before any call is made that is based upon it. They are to have this information for their own purposes no matter what your reactions to such a call are to be. +=+ > > By the way, does this mean you support the disclosure > of psych frequency as a Pre-Alert (or on the CC)? Or > would you prefer Alerting each of partner's bids that > might be a pscyh? > +=+ Alerting a potential psyche is insufficient notice of it. Read the law again: a key word is 'prior'. The WBF identifies three types of 'psychic' based upon partnership understandings: (1) developed partnership understandings that 'psychic' bids in certain situations will be of a certain type. The psychics are made randomly but the understandings about them must be detailed on the CC. (2) partnership understandings that psychics are expected or likely in certain situations. (3) psychics that are protected by system. Both type (3) and type (2) psychics are classified as Brown Sticker conventions or treatments. The information about them must be disclosed in accordance with the regs for BS conventions and they may not be used in Category Three events. It is not the intention to bar the true psychic where the partner has no advantage in the picking than has the opponent. In answer to your question, the information on the card should tell opponent more than just the frequency if there is more to tell: whatever the partner knows (see for example type 1 above). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 01:05:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91F5bq17968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 01:05:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f91F5TH17955 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 01:05:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-42-128.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.42.128] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15o4Ya-0005As-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:00:32 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c14a89$a91fe7e0$2a61063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:57:04 +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: 'Laval Dubreuil' ; Sent: 01 October 2001 12:02 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 25 > > > > I try desperately to improve my flow chart > > on Law 25 but it is a nightmare... The more > > I read this Law, the less I am sure!! > > > > +=+ Another Club 25 member+=+ > > > > > 3) N E S W > > 1S 2C P P Then E changes to 2D > > or calls TD at that moment and says: I wanted > > to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding > > card. Inadvertent, no pause for thought. > > Partner has already called. Too late for 25A. > > 25B applies (see 4). > > > Last remark is WRONG: 25B does not apply, > since LHO has called already. The auction continues > and E should be penalized for creating UI by telling > that he wanted to bid 2D. > +=+ I would suggest 'may' be penalized? ~ G ~ +=+ +=+ Reading this, would not the 2D bid, if spoken ('changes to 2D') be out of rotation at RHO's turn? +=+ +=+ I am still consulting my flaw chart :-)) If I have a further comment expect my return. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 01:40:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91FeJ721311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 01:40:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nyx.poczta.fm (nyx.poczta.fm [217.74.65.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91FeCH21307 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 01:40:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer, from userid 555) id B88D82A4CB4; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:35:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx.poczta.interia.pl (unknown [217.74.65.32]) by nyx.poczta.fm (Mailer) with ESMTP id CB1A42A4CB4 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:35:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (nereus.interia.pl [127.0.0.1]) by nereus.interia.pl (MX) with SMTP id 550565F4EBE for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:35:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from electra.interia.pl (poczta.interia.pl [217.74.65.44]) by mx.poczta.interia.pl (MX) with ESMTP id 730155F4E99 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:35:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from interia.pl (N062032168211.unregistered.formus.pl [62.32.168.211]) by electra.interia.pl (Mailserver) with ESMTP id 0BC39216CD7 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:35:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3BB88BE1.9000800@interia.pl> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:29:37 +0200 From: Konrad Ciborowski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; fr-FR; m18) Gecko/20010131 Netscape6/6.01 X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20011001085214.00b01800@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-EMID: bcd5cacc Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > I hadn't recalled, and am amazed and disturbed by, the policy's > explicit prohibition against "psychs against pairs or teams in > contention". How can one possibly know (by legal means) when when > sits down against some unknown opposing pair or team whether or not > they are "in contention"? Is this the cleverest way yet It certainly bans psyches in the first half of every tournament because until then everybody is "in contention". Later you can try a psyche when you know for sure that your opponents are out of it; for instance you saw the results of the first session in a two-session event and they had a 33% game. But indeed when there is a prize for winning a session (very common in Poland) then you are back to square one. It also means that psyches are forbidden in KO teams events as in every single match everyone is "in contention". I'm not sure if this is what the legislators meant to do. This policy means that it virtually never pays off to psyche (and indeed, psyching does become a long-run losing strategy); either it leads to a disaster or it turns out that your opponents were "in contention" at the time when you psyched so the TD will take away your good score. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -------------------------------------------- Czy wiesz, ze gniew szkodzi Twojemu zdrowiu? Naucz sie wybaczac! http://polki.interia.pl/rodzina/partnerstwo -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 02:18:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91GIEt21348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:18:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91GI8H21344 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:18:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA24109; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:12:09 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA00069; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:13:07 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011002181034.00a74050@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:12:31 +0200 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: References: <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$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 01:47 1/10/2001 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > > > I opened a Spanish spade against the club TD in Blundellsands about a >year ago. He gave me a lecture about psyching against beginners, to >which I naturally replied that I did not consider him one. AG : the ensuing story is very instructive. But could somebody explain to me what is a Spanish spade ? (unless this would be discourteous to the Spanish). Thanks. Alain. > He pointed out he meant his partner. I told him to stop being so >insulting to her. She is one of my regular partners in that club, and >has not qualified as a "beginner" for the last three years. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 02:49:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91GmxO21370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:48:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91GmrH21366 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:48:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-67.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.67]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C1F4736D82; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:43:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003801c14a97$682bc2a0$43b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:34:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > >> > I try desperately to improve my flow chart >> > on Law 25 but it is a nightmare... The more >> > I read this Law, the less I am sure!! >> > > >> >+=+ Another Club 25 member+=+ >> >> > >> > 3) N E S W >> > 1S 2C P P Then E changes to 2D >> > or calls TD at that moment and says: I wanted >> > to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding >> > card. Inadvertent, no pause for thought. >> > Partner has already called. Too late for 25A. >> > 25B applies (see 4). >> >> >> Last remark is WRONG: 25B does not apply, >> since LHO has called already. The auction continues >> and E should be penalized for creating UI by telling >> that he wanted to bid 2D. >> >+=+ I would suggest 'may' be penalized? ~ G ~ +=+ Why a questionmark here? Either you suggest or you don't. And you should not suggest it for me, since I really would give a penalty for this behaviour. It is your next turn to call and then you tell the world that your previous call should have been something else: 2D. Tell me: when do you suggest to give a penalty? > >+=+ Reading this, would not the 2D bid, if spoken >('changes to 2D') be out of rotation at RHO's turn? +=+ Yes of course, stupid bad reading from my side. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 02:55:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Gtmr21383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f91GtgH21379 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:55:43 +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 f91Gomw20988 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:40:43 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows" >, Marv French wrote: > > >Even psych enthusiasts surely must agree that the ACBL's stance on > >unsportsmanlike psychs is not unreasonable, even though its legality is > >somewhat suspect. Note that violations are not automatically penalized, but > >psychers accused of being unsportsmanlike must defend their actions in the > >face of an assumption of guilt. > > > > I'm not a member of the ACBL, nor am I likely to be come one at > any time in the future. However, if your last sentence is > correct, Marv, I for one will say that I definitely do *NOT* > "agree that the ACBL"s stance on unsportsmanlike psychs is not > unreasonable", purely as a matter of principle. Saying (in > effect) that someone has broken the rules unless they can prove > that they haven't is totally out of order, IMHO, particularly > when the action in question borders on the area of the player's > ethics. > Ay me, I think I goofed a little here. The presumption of guilt attaches to frequent psychers (defined as 3+ per session), who must explain why their psychs should not be consdered excessive, frivolous, or unsportsmanlike. If you psych frequently in a session, all you have to do is show that a number of hands that suggested a psych just happened to show up. That shouldn't be difficult unless you are psyching just to "horse around," as the ACBL puts it. If you psych against a very weak pair, or make a silly psych against a pair that is leading the event, or psych just because you have a 40% score coming into the last round of a boring game and want to create excitement, I don't see that it matters whether you are presumed guilty or not--you *are* guilty. If the Laws don't permit such unsportsmanlike behavior to be discouraged, then they should be changed to do so. Note that these unsportsmanlike behaviors are *not* subject to a PP or a score adjustment, only disciplinary action. A score adjustment is only in order if "the result was affected because the partner may have allowed for the psych due to previous experience." My understanding is that if the logic of the bidding says "psych," then previous experience doesn't matter. That is, you can allow for the psych if commonsense points to it, because the allowance is not *due to* (based on, founded on, protected by) previous experience. While ACBL TDs may not be following these guidelines, they seem reasonable to me, and I am one of those who believe that the psyching of a convention cannot be legally barred. While not a frequent psycher, I do psych occasionally and do not find the ACBL policy (as stated) to be at all restrictive. 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 Oct 2 03:38:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91HcWu21440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 03:38:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f91HcQH21436 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 03:38:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from anne ([213.105.138.192]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011001173330.KEGN20588.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:33:30 +0100 Message-ID: <00ea01c14a9e$f5eca760$c08a69d5@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20011002181034.00a74050@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:31:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "David Stevenson" ; Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > At 01:47 1/10/2001 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > >Marvin L. French writes > > > > > > I opened a Spanish spade against the club TD in Blundellsands about a > >year ago. He gave me a lecture about psyching against beginners, to > >which I naturally replied that I did not consider him one. > > AG : the ensuing story is very instructive. But could somebody explain to > me what is a Spanish spade ? (unless this would be discourteous to the > Spanish). > > Thanks. > Alain. > Third in hand (Ferdinand) :-) Anne > > > He pointed out he meant his partner. I told him to stop being so > >insulting to her. She is one of my regular partners in that club, and > >has not qualified as a "beginner" for the last three years. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 03:49:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91HnCY21461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 03:49:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91Hn6H21456 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 03:49:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15o76t-000Cg8-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:44:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:24:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 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 Kooijman, A. writes >Laval wrote: >> 2) N E S >> 1S 2C P Then E changes to 2D or calls TD at that moment >> and says: I wanted to bid 2D but took the wrong bidding card. >> Inadvertent, no pause for thought. Partner has not yet called. >> 25A again IMHO. E can bid 2D without penalty. >> Does S can change his call. >Before allowing to change his call the TD should tell S to pick up his >pass. South then can make any call he wants. If he does not pass the >information from that withdrawn call is unauthorized for opponents. >> Nothing in Law 25A about it? >indeed L21B1 allows S's withdrawal. >> 6) N E S >> 1S X no 2D P TD is called at that moment and deems that >> it is not a mechanical error. Law 25B applies. >> If the TD determines that S bid on the X, 2D stands without >> penalty, but S can change his call and 16C2 applies (25B1). >> If S intended to P on 2D ?? Nothing in 25B1 about that... > >WRONG, 25B1 starts with: the substituted call may be accepted... and that is >exactly what happens when the pass is made after and on the 2D bid. Just to be clear, >> If the TD determines that S bid on the X, 2D stands without >> penalty, but S can change his call and 16C2 applies (25B1). this bit was right. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 04:06:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91I5wo21482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:05:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91I5qH21477 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:05:53 +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 f91I0ww06402 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:00:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <010c01c14aa2$f418ade0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BB46B9E.7040902@interia.pl> <3BB49D84.900BE492@village.uunet.be> Subject: [BLML] IMP Scale, was VP Scale Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 10:54:36 -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 The discussion of VP scale has been interesting, but I am more interested in adjusting the IMP-scale itself according to the number of boards played. Gross score for an infinite number of boards, greatly reduced scale for a short Swiss match. Would that not do away with the necessity for VP scales altogether? The standard IMP-scale was derived after a long period of trial and adjustment, and is probably okay for the fairly long matches for which it was designed. The intent was to reduce the effect of slam swings and other large swings, which had been excessive for the number of boards played. The importance of large swings should be further reduced for very short team matches. IMP-Pairs would seem to require a different scale too, as the current truncation of the scale at 17 imps is not very scientific. As to the VP scale, all the discussions have convinced me that the present approach of equating a result of 20-0 with 60-40 is correct. 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 Oct 2 04:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91IQ0g21500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f91IPtH21496 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:25:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f91IL1w21806 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:21:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <011701c14aa5$c131a500$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928080001.00ab5ce0@127.0.0.1> <3BB46FF0.B2EF05C8@village.uunet.be> <008701c14851$797758a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002c01c14a6f$61af7ac0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:11:03 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > CC have led me to a conclusion I should have arrived at long ago: As with > > partner's degree of bidding aggressiveness, falsecarding proclivity, etc., > > psych frequency *per se* is not a matter for disclosure. > > AG : IBTD. You have to write something specific on your CC (the WBF model > and many others) if you regularly make wild overcalls, trash preempts, light > openings, or to the contrary if you follow a policy of very sound openings > and overcalls. See the general instructions on how to complete the CC (in > "Convention Card Program") for examples. Boxes like "general style" for > overcalls are made for this. When Gilles opens a 1st-in-hand NV 3-bid in a > minor, I alert, and upon asking I explain that such a bid may be made on > absolute trash. I think the opponents are entitled to such an information, > because I have it (L75C, "knowledge of partner"). Of course, of course, of course. I was talking about normal variations, not excessive ones. > As for falsecarding > proclivity, in a former partnership, we had the agreement "all signals off > against suit slams except count on the lead of the King", which is the same > as "falsecarding 50% of time against slams". That had to be told to the > opponents, and duly was. Of course. That doesn't mean telling opponents that partner is pretty good, or pretty bad, in the general falsecarding department. > > That doesn't mean > > there are no disclosable partnership agreements regarding pscyhs, only > that > > a reasonable frequency is not a "special" agreement, and it is only > special > > partnership agreements that must be disclosed (L75). > > AG : no, you have to disclose whatever you know of partnership style (L75C). > Bah. Partner's style, skill, and judgment are in general not "special information" (L75C) that needs to be discussed with opponents. You'd have to write a book. Only when that style goes outside of normal bounds does it become something "special." 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 Oct 2 04:29:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91ITlS21513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:29:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91ITgH21509 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:29:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f91IOlc09507 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:24:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200110011824.f91IOlc09507@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:24:46 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Gordon Bower" at Sep 29, 2001 03:21:57 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes: > > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ There is a difficult balance to be found between > > what is genuinely psychic and what is pretended > > psychic action actually based on implicit or explicit > > partnership understanding(s). Various attempts > > have been made to draw the line, and I have to say > > that in England there are a fair number of psyches > > and yet we seem to have the subject under control > > to a satisfactory degree. It surprises me that there > > are evidently strong feelings amongst some ACBL > > subscribers to this list that the subject is not well > > governed in North America; obviously I cannot > > speak from personal experience. > > If you mean "not well governed" in the sense that people have gotten the > impression from official sources that psyching is not encouraged, yes, > that's true - though in recent years there haven't been any major thrusts > in that direction that raised my hackles. (The last incident I recall was > the Meckstroth column about 9-12 1NT.) I recall reading about Rubin/Becker being ruled against 3 times in one match for psyches. Never saw any details and it was moot in that they won the match. > > How often are appeals in Zone 2 concerned > > with actual or purported psychics?- and what do > > they establish about the policy? ~ G ~ +=+ > > Almost never. There are two reasons for that. One, the vast majority of > players here never psych. (At any rate, the frequency with which they > forget conventions and generate bizarre accidents is an order of magnitude > higher than the frequency of deliberate attempts to mislead.) If there > aren't many incidents to begin with there obviously won't be very many > appeals. I seem to recall that Rubin/Becker appealed and lost all of these. And it was a passing reference in a match that wasn't otherwise reported so I have no details. My impression is that by the standards of American experts they psyched quite a bit. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 04:36:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Ia3Y21525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:36:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f91IZvH21521 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:35:57 +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 f91IV3w29500 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:31:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <012601c14aa7$28020760$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c14a71$98a514c0$04220fa4@ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:27:39 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > b. Psychs made against top contenders [not merely "stronger opposition"] > > that would not be made against one's peers > > AG : that would, however, constitute plausible tactics : you think you are > condemned to a very bad score if nothing happens, so you attempt to create a > swing. You feel this will maximise your gain expectancy, which is what you > should always be attempting to do. If this includes a psyche that you would > not bother to make against a pair which you are able to cope with, what's > wrong with that ? You have a good point there. A friend of mine used to psych against Lew Mathe at every opportunity, but did not do so against others. There are certain actions that are unsportsmanlike even if they don't violate the letter of the Laws, and I regarded this as unsportsmanlike. Lew did too, relaying a message to my friend that he was going to get a punch in the nose someday if he kept it up. I think psyching against top players is fine, as long as you are consistent and don't just pick on leaders of an event or an individual player (or pair). B. J. Simon said that psychers are more likely to fool an expert than a palooka, as the palookas just bid the cards they see without heeding the opposing bidding. > 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 Oct 2 04:46:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Ik5Q21544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:46:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f91IjxH21540 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:46:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f91If5w07124 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <013c01c14aa8$8ee94d20$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <4.3.2.7.1.20011001085214.00b01800@127.0.0.1> <3BB88BE1.9000800@interia.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:34:45 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Konrad Ciborowski > This policy means that it virtually never pays off to psyche (and > indeed, psyching does become > a long-run losing strategy); either it leads to a disaster or it turns > out that your opponents > were "in contention" at the time when you psyched so the TD will take > away your good score. Unwarranted assumption. There is no mention of changing the score (unless, of course, there has been MI in regard to special partnership agreements). *Duplicate Decisions* makes clear that any punishment comes via disciplinary action, not from a PP or score adjustment. 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 Oct 2 04:58:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Iw9J21561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:58:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91Iw3H21557 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 04:58:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f91Ir7U05743 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:53:07 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > > People do not agree on ethics. Is it sportsmanlike to psyche against > a beginner? No, ok, no problem. Now, how do you define a beginner? I've been psyching against my (recently ex-beginner) wife for some time now. She doesn't mind if if do do it from right or left but has been heard to say "I wish you'd stop doing that" when sitting opposite. > I opened a Spanish spade.. My understanding is that this wouldn't count as a "psyche" in the currently common meaning of the word. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 08:13:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91MCFV04330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:12:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91MC9H04326 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15oBDT-000GXy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:07:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:09:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >If you psych against a very weak pair, or make a silly psych against a pair >that is leading the event, or psych just because you have a 40% score coming >into the last round of a boring game and want to create excitement, I don't >see that it matters whether you are presumed guilty or not--you *are* >guilty. If the Laws don't permit such unsportsmanlike behavior to be >discouraged, then they should be changed to do so. You cannot reduce judgement calls to presumed guilty calls. You have to allow the method of deciding what happened to proceed without presumptions. Jst to consider one of your examples, in what way are you "guilty" of unsportsmanlike behaviour when you psyche against a weak pair if you do not know they are a weak pair? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 08:51:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91MpWB04742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:51:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91MpPH04730 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-84-230.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.84.230] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15oBpL-0004Sr-00; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:46:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c14acb$525c9420$e654063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <003801c14a97$682bc2a0$43b6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:58:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 > >> > > >> > >+=+ I would suggest 'may' be penalized? > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > Why a questionmark here? Either you suggest > or you don't. And you should not suggest it for > me, since I really would give a penalty for this > behaviour. It is your next turn to call and then > you tell the world that your previous call should > have been something else: 2D. Tell me: when > do you suggest to give a penalty? > +=+ Well, ... '?' is a signal of a certain diffidence in putting the thought. After all, I know you would probably do as you say. On the other hand my opinion is that it is a matter for the Director's discretion in the circumstances of the day. If I were directing in the Threapwood Parva Bridge Club I might well think it enough to admonish and educate without imposing a penalty. Between one height and another there are many steps and my view would be to invite our readers to judge whether to penalize, having regard to the surroundings and the level of experience of the player. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 08:57:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Mvbg05663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:57:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f91MvUH05649 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:57:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18665 invoked by uid 50005); 1 Oct 2001 22:49:00 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4163. . Clean. Processed in 0.117956 secs); 01 Oct 2001 22:49:00 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 1 Oct 2001 22:49:00 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:52:41 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:40:43 -0700, Marv wrote: > >If you psych against a very weak pair, or make a silly psych against a pair >that is leading the event, or psych just because you have a 40% score coming >into the last round of a boring game and want to create excitement, I don't >see that it matters whether you are presumed guilty or not--you *are* >guilty. If the Laws don't permit such unsportsmanlike behavior to be >discouraged, then they should be changed to do so. > What methods do you recommend for identifying very weak pairs or pairs that are leading the event, Marv? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 09:53:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f91Nr2J07580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:53:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f91NquH07576 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:52:57 +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 f91NmOj15959 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:48:24 -0800 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:47:16 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Unsportsmanlike (was Awakening Allowance) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now, I'll be the first to agree that psyching against weak opponents isn't a good idea. In addition to coming across as rude, it also has a lot less to gain (see Marv's post about palookas vs experts earlier in the thread), and it seems rather silly to adopt a high-variance strategy (which most psychs are) when you expect good score to begin with. But why should psyching be treated any differently than any other bidding sequence? Most all of us, consciously or not, adjust the quality of our preempts a little based on how likely we think our opponents are to punish us, and this is, well, just trying to maximize our score on each board. Here is a non-psychic bidding situation; I'd like some opinions as to whether it is "unsportsmanlike." Against good opposition I go out of my way to preempt after a strong 2C opening on my right. Against weaker opposition, of course, I still preempt over a strong 2C when I hold suitable hands. Against good opponents I am hesitant todouble or overcall 2D without a good reason, since I know this gives my LHO extra bidding space. HOWEVER: if I have reason to suspect my opponents have not discussed how to handle interference over 2C, I will double or bid 2D on almost any hand where I can stomach my partner leading the suit or sacrificing in it. I am not psyching; I really have something in the suits I show. But I am deliberately making an overcall I know is "losing bridge", because I can virtually guarantee I will cause my opponents to have a bidding misunderstanding and force them to gamble on a final contract instead of bidding scientifically. In my regular club it's very easy to know who to try this stunt against and who not to. At a regional, by reading the daily bulletin each morning, I usually know whether my opponents are a regular partnership and whether they've been making a good showing of themselves this week. In other words, this is a tactic that could easily be called "unsporting," but it's common bridge knowledge some tactics work better at some times than at others, and it's public information who won yesterday's event... GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 10:51:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f920no216377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:49:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f920nhH16357 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:49:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-90-198.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.90.198] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15oDfu-000ETf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 01:44:42 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c14adb$dc7c2020$c65a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Law 25 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 01:45:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Universally Good is present in all lands > sitting on a jewelled lotus throne, beheld > by all; He manifests all psychic powers > and is able to enter infinite meditations." > {Buddhist text}. > + + + + + + + + + + + > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ton Kooijman > To: Grattan Endicott ; > > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 5:34 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25 > > > > >> > > > >> > > >+=+ I would suggest 'may' be penalized? > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > Why a questionmark here? Either you suggest > > or you don't. And you should not suggest it for > > me, since I really would give a penalty for this > > behaviour. It is your next turn to call and then > > you tell the world that your previous call should > > have been something else: 2D. Tell me: when > > do you suggest to give a penalty? > > > +=+ Well, ... '?' is a signal of a certain diffidence in > putting the thought. After all, I know you would > probably do as you say. On the other hand my > opinion is that it is a matter for the Director's > discretion in the circumstances of the day. If > I were directing in the Threapwood Parva Bridge > Club I might well think it enough to admonish > and educate without imposing a penalty. > Between one height and another there are > many steps and my view would be to invite our > readers to judge whether to penalize, having > regard to the surroundings and the level of > experience of the player. ~ 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 12:36:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f922a5J06700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:36:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail13.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail13.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f922a0H06696 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:36:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail13.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011002023100.HSQG18139.femail13.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:31:00 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 19:32:58 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > How often are appeals in Zone 2 concerned >with actual or purported psychics?- and what do >they establish about the policy? ~ G ~ +=+ > Funny you should ask that - we had our first two at the Toronto NABC.... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 15:02:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9251vP06763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:01:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9251qH06759 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:01:52 +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 f924uuw24668 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:56:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <016501c14afe$98515460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> <006101c149d8$40fd7300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 21:56:24 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > >Let's get specific. Suppose I am playing with John Probst in an ACBL NABC, > >and the only agreements we reach are those needed to fill out the CC. On the > >first board I open 1H, LHO doubles, John bids 1S, and RHO doubles > >(business). I hold four spades myself, and am therefore certain that John > >has psyched. Must I Alert the 1S bid? Or must we pre-Alert that John has a > >reputation for psyching? Obviously not, since the psych is not based on a > >partnership understanding. > > > >Now, after a number of sessions I find that he has committed the same psych > >on numerous occasions. Has partnership experience established a concealed > >partnership understanding? I have gained nothing of value from the > >partnership experience, provided I raise spades with a raising hand when 1S > >is not doubled for business. Is the psych now "based on" a concealed > >partnership understanding? I say no. > > Whether you gain from the partnership experience or not does not > affect whether you have such experience. You have an understanding now. > But not a special partnership understanding/agreement, not special information. "a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement" (L75C) is not the same as "a player shall disclose all information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or experience" Does the word "special" in Law 75 have no significance whatsover? 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 Oct 2 15:32:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f925WAt11337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:32:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f925W5H11333 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:32:05 +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 f925R9w16666 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:22:00 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows > Marv wrote: > > > > > > >If you psych against a very weak pair, or make a silly psych against a pair > >that is leading the event, or psych just because you have a 40% score coming > >into the last round of a boring game and want to create excitement, I don't > >see that it matters whether you are presumed guilty or not--you *are* > >guilty. If the Laws don't permit such unsportsmanlike behavior to be > >discouraged, then they should be changed to do so. > > > What methods do you recommend for identifying very weak pairs Many objectionable actions--peeking at opposing hands, listening to results at a nearby table, creating subtle UI, etc., are very difficult to detect. I don't have any methods to recommend for detecting them, but that doesn't mean they should not be outlawed. Club TDs know their players, even if NABC TDs don't. They know who is horsing around and who is seriously trying to win. They should be able to handle this regulation intelligently. I realize that is more difficult at higher levels of competition. Some things have to be left up to players' consciences. If you are not supposed to do something, you don't do it. > or pairs that are leading the event, Marv? After the first of two sessions, the leading pair is known when the second session starts. In the type of barometer games played hereabouts, the leaders are known in near real-time. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 17:14:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9278EE00065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:08:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92789H00061 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:08:10 +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 RAA15572 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:11:42 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:50:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] What makes Bridge popular? (was: another wild idea) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:56:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/10/2001 04:55:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: [snip] >Localities that have complex rules (e.g. ACBL) seem to >have a natural tendency towards negative growth (OK, >so the ACBL membership fall has been stemmed and in >fact is growing at a very small rate now, but that IMO >is probably due to some good decisions by the ACBL). > >Localities with simple rules (e.g. ABF) seem to >engender positive growth (e.g. the ABF membership >increased by 50% during the last decade from 20,000 to >30,000). [snip] The ABF's alerting rules are simpler than the ACBL's alerting rules. However, the bidding systems generally permitted in ACBL-land are simpler than those generally permitted in the home of the vegemite sandwich. Therefore, *simplicity* in and of itself, is not the sole factor which makes Bridge popular. Perhaps the relevant factor is *politeness*. The complexity of the ACBL alerting rules gives a casus belli for bridge lawyers to be rude to their opponents. While in Australia, politeness to opponents is more likely, thus increasing the number of repeat customers at the local bridge club. 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 Oct 2 17:24:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f927O6J00096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:24:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f927O0H00092 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:24:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 22199 invoked by uid 50005); 2 Oct 2001 07:15:29 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4163. . Clean. Processed in 0.110634 secs); 02 Oct 2001 07:15:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell600) ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Oct 2001 07:15:29 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 03:19:11 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:22:00 -0700, Marv wrote: > >From: "Brian Meadows > >> Marv wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >If you psych against a very weak pair, or make a silly psych against a >pair >> >that is leading the event, or psych just because you have a 40% score >coming >> >into the last round of a boring game and want to create excitement, I >don't >> >see that it matters whether you are presumed guilty or not--you *are* >> >guilty. If the Laws don't permit such unsportsmanlike behavior to be >> >discouraged, then they should be changed to do so. >> > >> What methods do you recommend for identifying very weak pairs > >Many objectionable actions--peeking at opposing hands, listening to results >at a nearby table, creating subtle UI, etc., are very difficult to detect. I >don't have any methods to recommend for detecting them, but that doesn't >mean they should not be outlawed. > Don't disagree with that for a moment. >Club TDs know their players, even if NABC TDs don't. They know who is >horsing around and who is seriously trying to win. They should be able to >handle this regulation intelligently. I realize that is more difficult at >higher levels of competition. Some things have to be left up to players' >consciences. If you are not supposed to do something, you don't do it. > But Marv, you are putting the onus on a player who wishes to psych to know, in advance of doing so, whether or not his opps are "a very weak pair". Unlike the actions in your first paragraph, which should always be outlawed, what we seem to have regarding psyches is that they can be either perfectly legal or not, depending on a piece of information that the player wishing to psych may not have. This is surely creating an unfair playing condition? If I have played tournament bridge in an area for many years, I may know (most of) the pairs which it is not legal to psych against. If I am new to the area, I am at a disadvantage, because I have no means of telling whether I can legally psych against someone or not. In that case, you might just as well tell me that I cannot psych when my LHO has an odd number of red cards in his hand. This either reduces the game to a lottery or it has the effect of banning psyches unless you know both your opponents and how well they are currently doing in the event unless you're prepared to take the chance of being accused of unsportsmanlike conduct if you get unlucky with your opps if you choose to psych. >> or pairs that are leading the event, Marv? > >After the first of two sessions, the leading pair is known when the second >session starts. In the type of barometer games played hereabouts, the >leaders are known in near real-time. > In that case, I'm just not familiar with the way events are run in your area. IN a two session pairs run in the way I am familiar with, which means county-level tournaments in the UK up to around five years ago, then you have no idea who's winning until half-time. Then the first session is scored, and the results posted. leaving aside the fact that the leading pairs may not be known to you (maybe the TD should announce at the start of the second session that the leading pairs are X, Y and Z, ask them to stand up so the room knows who they are, and state that they may not be psyched against unless they're having a bad second half?) I'm sorry, Marv, but I just don't see this. As we all know, the right to psych is protected by law. If psyching against certain pairs is to be prohibited, or is to be subject to some form of redress, punishment or censure, then players have a right to know in advance who those pairs are, IMHO. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 19:45:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f929j9B00463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:45:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f929j2H00435 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:45:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-97.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.97]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f929dwB09743 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:39:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BB97D6B.6E68AD0E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:40:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > I opened a Spanish spade.. > > My understanding is that this wouldn't count as a "psyche" in the > currently common meaning of the word. > Why not ? To put everything in pespective - opening third in hand, on 0-3 points. I do it every time I have the opportunity, which is about twice a year. I estimate that from my third-in-hand openings, less than one per cent are psychs. Why should that not count as a psyche ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 21:39:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92BcD907504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:38:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92Bc7H07500 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:38:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA12378; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:32:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA22730; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:33:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011003132753.00a5c020@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:32:29 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <3BB97D6B.6E68AD0E@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:40 2/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >To put everything in pespective - opening third in hand, on >0-3 points. > >I do it every time I have the opportunity, which is about >twice a year. > >I estimate that from my third-in-hand openings, less than >one per cent are psychs. > >Why should that not count as a psyche ? AG : because it creates an inference of an illegal type, namely "Herman's Spanish (I'm a quick learner !) passes show 4-11 HCP". AFAIC, you may not play this. Regards, alain. >-- >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 Tue Oct 2 22:09:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92C8GB08362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:08:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from robin.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@robin.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92C89H08325 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:08:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by robin.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f91GvH111024; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:57:17 +0100 Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f91GqGD01698; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:52:16 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:52:16 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 RAA01636; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:52:16 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA03545; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:52:15 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 17:52:15 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110011652.RAA03545@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, agot@ulb.ac.be Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > AG : the ensuing story is very instructive. But could somebody explain to > me what is a Spanish spade ? (unless this would be discourteous to the > Spanish). > > Thanks. > Alain. > No (luckily) not discourteous, just a (bad) pun. It means opening 1S after two passes, => third in hand => firdinand (careless pronunciation: th=>f, h=>'') => Ferdinand => a Spaniard Hence 'a Spanish spade' is 1S opened third in hand. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 2 22:28:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92CQcu09670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:26:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92CPCH09665 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:25:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-81.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.81]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f92CK6T04887; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:20:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BB9AFF1.4B458B41@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:15:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: fifth friday , Bridge Laws , jkuchen@ehc.edu, jan.romanski@icl.com, ilczuk@ulam.im.pwr.wroc.pl, Patrick Jourdain Subject: [BLML] Announcing the fifth ss Finland tournament Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Started in 1997, this year we are planning for the fifth time a World Simultaneous tournament on the birthday of bridge, October 31st. In honour of the ship on which the sport originated, this tournament is called the ss Finland Challenge. Heats can be played on any day of the week containing 31/10, that is from monday the 29th of October till sunday the 4th of November. If your club is interested in hosting a heat of this event, do contact Herman De Wael at hermandw@village.uunet.be. The tournament also counts towards the fifth friday trophy 2000-2001. -- 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 Oct 3 00:15:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92EDei14477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:13:40 +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-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 f92EDYH14473 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:13:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-170-112.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.170.112]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f92E8ZB01870 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:08:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BB9B39B.30704EB3@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:31:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011003132753.00a5c020@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > At 10:40 2/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >To put everything in pespective - opening third in hand, on > >0-3 points. > > > >I do it every time I have the opportunity, which is about > >twice a year. > > > >I estimate that from my third-in-hand openings, less than > >one per cent are psychs. > > > >Why should that not count as a psyche ? > > AG : because it creates an inference of an illegal type, namely "Herman's > Spanish (I'm a quick learner !) passes show 4-11 HCP". AFAIC, you may not > play this. > > Regards, > > alain. > OK Alain, I'll take the bait. Do explain me on which regulation you base that. There are regulations that say that you are not allowed (unless making your system yellow) to pass on hands stronger than those _normally_ considered openable. Not that are stronger than hands that are opened. Also there are regulations that prohibit openings that promise weak hands. My Spanish openings do no such things. I know that we are in gray areas, and I am a bit more open in my admission that I "always" open this than most players, some of whom will also always open them but then say it's the first time in half a year (also true). (I still remember the time when the same psych occured not just on my table but also the next one - why should the other one be allowed and mine not, simply because I admit to having done it before ?) So I repeat, why is this an inadmissible system ? -- 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 Oct 3 00:42:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92EdeX14503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:39:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92EdXH14499 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:39:34 +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 f92EYY820498; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:34:35 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f92EYYX20082; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:34:34 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:34:34 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 PAA03679; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:34:33 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA04790; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:34:33 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:34:33 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110021434.PAA04790@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > AG : because it creates an inference of an illegal type, namely "Herman's > > Spanish (I'm a quick learner !) passes show 4-11 HCP". AFAIC, you may not > > play this. > > > > Regards, > > > > alain. > > > > OK Alain, I'll take the bait. > > Do explain me on which regulation you base that. > You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings (under L40D). 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 Oct 3 01:33:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92FVBD14784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:31:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92FV4H14780 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:31:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15oRQp-0004um-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:26:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:17:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> <006101c149d8$40fd7300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <016501c14afe$98515460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <016501c14afe$98515460$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> Marvin L. French writes >> >> >Let's get specific. Suppose I am playing with John Probst in an ACBL >NABC, >> >and the only agreements we reach are those needed to fill out the CC. On >the >> >first board I open 1H, LHO doubles, John bids 1S, and RHO doubles >> >(business). I hold four spades myself, and am therefore certain that John >> >has psyched. Must I Alert the 1S bid? Or must we pre-Alert that John has >a >> >reputation for psyching? Obviously not, since the psych is not based on a >> >partnership understanding. >> > >> >Now, after a number of sessions I find that he has committed the same >psych >> >on numerous occasions. Has partnership experience established a concealed >> >partnership understanding? I have gained nothing of value from the >> >partnership experience, provided I raise spades with a raising hand when >1S >> >is not doubled for business. Is the psych now "based on" a concealed >> >partnership understanding? I say no. >> >> Whether you gain from the partnership experience or not does not >> affect whether you have such experience. You have an understanding now. >> >But not a special partnership understanding/agreement, not special >information. OK, tell me in what way it is not special. >"a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through >partnership agreement" (L75C) is not the same as > >"a player shall disclose all information conveyed to him through partnership >agreement or experience" > >Does the word "special" in Law 75 have no significance whatsover? I do not know. But it certainly does not give a player the right to hide partnership understandings. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 01:35:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92FYG514914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:34:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92FYBH14894 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:34:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f92FTEq17719 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:29:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200110021529.f92FTEq17719@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:29:13 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Brian Meadows" at Oct 01, 2001 06:52:41 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes: > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:40:43 -0700, Marv wrote: > > > > > > >If you psych against a very weak pair, or make a silly psych against a pair > >that is leading the event, or psych just because you have a 40% score coming > >into the last round of a boring game and want to create excitement, I don't > >see that it matters whether you are presumed guilty or not--you *are* > >guilty. If the Laws don't permit such unsportsmanlike behavior to be > >discouraged, then they should be changed to do so. > > > > What methods do you recommend for identifying very weak pairs Already covered by Nick Straguzzi (believe the piece was called The Principal of Restricted Talent) Chthonic asks the pair sitting down whether they're nincompoops. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 01:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92FePU16362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:40:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92FeGH16334 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:40:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f92FZJ001346 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:35:19 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:35 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance 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: <001e01c149bc$9a3aab20$2a377bd5@dodona> With apologies to Kaplan the UK policy on psyches is approximately: Thanks to efforts of Grattan The enjoyment of psyching to flatten Its OK to psyche As much as you like If it results in a straight losing pattern Statements such as the following are simply untrue. > More accurately, in fact, it > is your partner who violates Law 40A by making such a > call when the partnership understanding has not been > made known in advance of the occurrence. The EBU has no requirement (or even suggested mechanism) for prior disclosure of the psyching tendencies of the partnership. As with other aspects of system and style the correct (by default) disclosure method is in answer to opponent's questions. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 01:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92FeUo16382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:40:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92FeGH16333 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:40:16 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f92FZIn01320 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:35:18 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:35 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance 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: <3BB97D6B.6E68AD0E@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > > > I opened a Spanish spade.. > > > > My understanding is that this wouldn't count as a "psyche" in the > > currently common meaning of the word. > > > > Why not ? Possibly a matter of interpretation. I believe that "Spanish Spade" shows genuine spades but may be light/ultralight in values (c 8/9 HCP). > To put everything in pespective - opening third in hand, on > 0-3 points. > > I do it every time I have the opportunity, which is about > twice a year. > > I estimate that from my third-in-hand openings, less than > one per cent are psychs. > > Why should that not count as a psyche ? Which I too would call a psyche - I wouldn't call it a Spanish Spade (particularly since you usually do it in hearts!). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 02:04:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92G2tw18420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:02:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92G2nH18409 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:02:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA20841; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:57:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200110021557.IAA20841@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:29:13 EDT." <200110021529.f92FTEq17719@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 08:57:46 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > > What methods do you recommend for identifying very weak pairs > > Already covered by Nick Straguzzi (believe the piece was called > The Principal of Restricted Talent) > > Chthonic asks the pair sitting down whether they're nincompoops. This is a possibility, but it could seem burdensome to many players to have to ask each pair they play against whether they're nincompoops. Plus, the responses to such a question may well interfere with players' enjoyment of the game and thus result in numerous Zero Tolerance violations. It would be preferable, I think, to pass a regulation requiring nincompoops to put a red dot on their card (the sort we used to use for alerting the opponents to unusual lead or defense agreements) identifying them as nincompoops. -- 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 Oct 3 02:39:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92GbBc23727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:37:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f92Gb6H23723 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:37:07 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31974 invoked by uid 50005); 2 Oct 2001 16:29:03 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpb with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4163. . Clean. Processed in 0.100185 secs); 02 Oct 2001 16:29:03 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpb.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Oct 2001 16:29:03 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:32:16 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200110021529.f92FTEq17719@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <200110021557.IAA20841@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200110021557.IAA20841@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 08:57:46 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >It would be preferable, I think, to pass a regulation requiring >nincompoops to put a red dot on their card (the sort we used to use >for alerting the opponents to unusual lead or defense agreements) >identifying them as nincompoops. > Good idea! For those nincompoops who routinely do not have convention cards, perhaps we could arrange something a little more permanent, e.g. TDs are required to carry a large indelible marker, and to write "nincompoop" across the foreheads of the offending pair on the second offence? I foresee a lucrative market in selling medical insurance to TDs. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 02:50:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92Gmcq23750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:48:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92GmXH23746 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:48:34 +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 f92Ghbw02705 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:43:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01ad01c14b61$4b7d5360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:42:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows" > Marv wrote: > > >Club TDs know their players, even if NABC TDs don't. They know who is > >horsing around and who is seriously trying to win. They should be able to > >handle this regulation intelligently. I realize that is more difficult at > >higher levels of competition. Some things have to be left up to players' > >consciences. If you are not supposed to do something, you don't do it. > > > > But Marv, you are putting the onus on a player who wishes to > psych to know, in advance of doing so, whether or not his opps > are "a very weak pair". Unlike the actions in your first > paragraph, which should always be outlawed, what we seem to have > regarding psyches is that they can be either perfectly legal or > not, depending on a piece of information that the player wishing > to psych may not have. This is surely creating an unfair playing > condition? If I have played tournament bridge in an area for many > years, I may know (most of) the pairs which it is not legal to > psych against. If I am new to the area, I am at a disadvantage, > because I have no means of telling whether I can legally psych > against someone or not. In that case, you might just as well tell > me that I cannot psych when my LHO has an odd number of red cards > in his hand. This either reduces the game to a lottery or it has > the effect of banning psyches unless you know both your opponents > and how well they are currently doing in the event unless you're > prepared to take the chance of being accused of unsportsmanlike > conduct if you get unlucky with your opps if you choose to psych. A perfectly good defense is that you didn't know that an opposing pair were novices (a better description than "very weak pair"). I have no problem with recognizing novices at the table (this is not OKB), and doubt that anyone does. Moreover, did I not make clear that the ACBL regulation kicks in only against frequent psychers (>=3 per session)? Perhaps I should have quoted the entire one page devoted to this subject. For clubs, the advice is this: "Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled psychs by saying that the burden of proof will be on the player [n.b., not *pair*], if he makes more than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not using excessive, frivolous, or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding." An occasional psych against a leading pair, or novice pair, or "to create action at the table," although possibly unsportsmanlike, is never going to be a subject for disciplinary action. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 02:50:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92GnUR23756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:49:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12901.mail.yahoo.com (web12901.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f92GnPH23752 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:49:26 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20011002164425.43798.qmail@web12901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.80.128.161] by web12901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:44:25 PDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Dimitr Georgiev Subject: [BLML] L30B1, lead penalties To: Bridge Laws MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would like to thanks all, who took a place in this very useful and in some moments very hot discussion, especially Ton, Grattan and David. Dimitr Georgiev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 02:59:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92GvsY23804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:57:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12905.mail.yahoo.com (web12905.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f92GvnH23793 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:57:49 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.80.128.161] by web12905.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:52:52 PDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:52:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Dimitr Georgiev Subject: [BLML] L30 To: Bridge Laws MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have been asked for a ruling. The problem is: N is the dealer. Befor he bids S passes out of turn. Then N bids (not simultaneouslly). What is the corect ruling? Regards Dimitr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 03:05:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92H4Hn24619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:04:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92H4BH24607 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:04:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f92GxDi00626 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:59:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:59 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance 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: <200110021434.PAA04790@tempest.npl.co.uk> Robin Barker wrote: > > You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, > your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings > (under L40D). While the SO *could* use this law to ban many psyches I don't think that it is an approach we should condone*. If Herman (or anyone else) wants to bid that way, and has no systemic protection then they should be allowed to do so. Obviously the regulations on disclosure need to address the issue. The Orange book refers to weak opening one bids "by agreement" not merely "when an understanding exists" so Herman shouldn't have a problem with his psyches in the UK (at least under this rule). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 03:13:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92HBlo25698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:11:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92HBeH25682 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:11:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-62-193.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.62.193] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15oT0C-000Ie6-00; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c14b64$71c60460$c13e7bd5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] 1985 letter Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:58:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:13:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f92H83477498 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:08:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011002130153.00b0eee0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:07:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <200110021557.IAA20841@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:57 AM 10/2/01, Adam wrote: >It would be preferable, I think, to pass a regulation requiring >nincompoops to put a red dot on their card (the sort we used to use >for alerting the opponents to unusual lead or defense agreements) >identifying them as nincompoops. That won't work, because, as Marv likes to remind us, nobody ever looks at convention cards anymore. Perhaps the WBFLC could consider requiring them to put red dots on their foreheads. It would be interesting to discover how many players find psychs so abhorrent that they would be willing to identify themselves publicly as nincompoops in return for the assurance that they will not be psyched against. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 03:39:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92Hc5I28696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92Hc0H28692 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:38:00 +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 KAA22143; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:33:01 -0700 Message-Id: <200110021733.KAA22143@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:07:39 EDT." <4.3.2.7.1.20011002130153.00b0eee0@127.0.0.1> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:32:59 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 11:57 AM 10/2/01, Adam wrote: > > >It would be preferable, I think, to pass a regulation requiring > >nincompoops to put a red dot on their card (the sort we used to use > >for alerting the opponents to unusual lead or defense agreements) > >identifying them as nincompoops. > > That won't work, because, as Marv likes to remind us, nobody ever looks > at convention cards anymore. Perhaps the WBFLC could consider > requiring them to put red dots on their foreheads. > > It would be interesting to discover how many players find psychs so > abhorrent that they would be willing to identify themselves publicly as > nincompoops in return for the assurance that they will not be psyched > against. I'd consider it, but I think this might be considered "illegal deception." :-) -- 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 Oct 3 04:30:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92ISa203957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:28:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92ISTH03933 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:28:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f92INDo27308 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01ad01c14b61$4b7d5360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01ad01c14b61$4b7d5360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:19:21 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >"Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled psychs by saying that the >burden of proof will be on the player [n.b., not *pair*], if he makes more >than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not using excessive, >frivolous, or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding." Sounds an awful lot like "prove you aren't cheating." :-( If a TD, or a player, wants to accuse someone of cheating, or excessive or (in particular) frivolous or unsportsmanlike psyching, it seems to me the burden of proof should be on the accuser. Yes, it might be hard to prove. Tough. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO7oGGr2UW3au93vOEQIuMgCePDp7eVMMjps7al7sJtLBO1btMDgAoJzG GHEb7bqvt0pdcUM5CqIRl6n9 =Fmbj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 04:48:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92Il2206262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:47:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92IkvH06258 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:46:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA00801 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA25217 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110021842.OAA25217@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > AG : because it creates an inference of an illegal type, namely "Herman's > > Spanish (I'm a quick learner !) passes show 4-11 HCP". AFAIC, you may not > > play this. > OK Alain, I'll take the bait. > From: Herman De Wael > Do explain me on which regulation you base that. It depends on the convention regulations. The pass _promising values_ is a convention (L30C), and many SO's (the ACBL among them) don't include "opening" conventional passes on the list of approved conventions. (Isn't it Brown Sticker in the WBF?) As someone else mentioned, there may be a distinction between "partnership understandings" (L40), and "partnership agreements" (L75 and the definition of 'convention'). I have written before that the Laws could be clearer in spelling out what is illegal to do at all, what may be regulated, and what must be disclosed, and that there is clearly some tension amongst those concepts. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 05:04:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92J2vT06279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 05:02:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92J2pH06275 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 05:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f92Ivpo10292 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:57:51 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:57:41 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >N is the dealer. Befor he bids S passes out of turn. >Then N bids (not simultaneouslly). What is the corect >ruling? It seems to me that West may elect to call over South's pass [Law 29A]. If he does so, that makes North's bid out of turn. Now East may elect to call (or not). So, the possibilities are: 1. West elects not to call. The auction reverts to North, whose bid is in turn. South must pass once [Law 30A] and Law 72B1 may apply. 2. West elects to call. North has bid out of turn. Now East may elect to call. 2a. East elects to call. Thereby forfeiting the right to penalize [Law 29A]. Auction continues normally. North's bid is UI to South [Law 16C2]. 2b. East elects not to call. North's bid is cancelled, but is UI to South {16C2 again]. The auction reverts to West, and then continues normally. No other penalty. Questions: 1. In the event a non-offending player elects to call, but has not actually done so, is his partner entitled to know what his call would have been? 16C1 would seem to say it is. 2. May North, in situation 2a above, change his call under Law 25B? I think not, but I'm not sure. I *am* sure he can't use 25A. :-) 3. If West elects to call, and his call would have made North's bid insufficient, what then? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO7oOMr2UW3au93vOEQJV9QCeKJpQJTDxKXv/awRv64cdNCETHAcAoNDF I6TLATjfCXzCDwXlxyh3V4g8 =QJj3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 06:19:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92KJK908205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 06:19:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f92KJFH08201 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 06:19:15 +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 f92KEIw03260 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <021701c14b7e$b6dec5e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] What makes Bridge popular? (was: another wild idea) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:07:22 -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 (Forwarded because my initial reply to something of Peter's always gets kicked back due to the address assigned: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au, which doesn't work. Then I have to fish the reply out of my "sent" items and forward it to the right BLML address. What am I doing wrong?) > > > Peter Gill wrote: > > > > While in Australia, politeness to opponents is more > > likely, thus increasing the number of repeat customers > > at the local bridge club. > > > It has interested me to see the tendency of ACBL members to become more > "thin-skinned" over the last 50 years. In the ACBL's heyday of popularity, > thin-skinned pairs would play in the side games, staying out of the > championships, where MI and UI were generally handled by sarcastic remarks. > Part of the "rudeness" was cultural, as many New Yorkers and Angelenos (LA) > find it difficult to realize that what is normal banter for them may be > rudeness to others. > > An interesting pscyhology experiment found that when rats were given a > choice between staying in a comfortable nest with good food and water, or > going out into a common area where there was lots of fighting and bickering, > most would spend the majority of their time in the "arena." Make of that > what you will. > > When kibitzing him (a real delight) during a New York City NABC in the 50s, > I saw that Tobias Stone was genuinely interested in the "bridge reasons" for > some opposing actions. Not because he suspected wrongdoing, but because he > was really curious to know the thinking behind some bids or plays. > > One young woman made a bid that worked well, and Stone asked, > > "How did you come to make that bid?" > > Nervous answer: "My partner didn't hesitate, did she?" > > "We know you cheat, I just wanted to know what your thinking was." > > That sounds shockingly rude, but it was taken for what it was: a joking > remark. > > But that was in New York City, in another time. If I were to try that at the > Las Vegas NABC next month, the TD would be called. I would be ejected from > the game and suspended for a month at least. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 07:37:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92LbFJ08240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:37:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d06.mx.aol.com (imo-d06.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92LbAH08236 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:37:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id b.122.54788bb (4403); Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:31:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <122.54788bb.28eb8c38@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:31:36 EDT Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] What makes Bridge popular? (was: another wild idea) To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_122.54788bb.28eb8c38_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_122.54788bb.28eb8c38_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 4:15:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > But that was in New York City, in another time. If I were to try that at > the > > Las Vegas NABC next month, the TD would be called. I would be ejected from > > the game and suspended for a month at least. > > > > Marv > > Marvin L. French > > San Diego, California > > > Are you for real? Only a month? Put me on the AC and I'll hold out for a > YEAR! It is of great interest to me,. as a native New Yorker, to find > that our failings have been so clearly identified by someone from San > Diego. California. As I remember , we did export a great number of > opportunists to the lesser coast some many years ago. Something about > gold, or was it fool's gold? Was your analogy about rats possibly a comment to indicate that there are a healthy disproportionate number of type "A"s in New York? Or was it just Marv at his finest in injecting unrelated trivia? Kojak --part1_122.54788bb.28eb8c38_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 4:15:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:



> But that was in New York City, in another time. If I were to try that at
the
> Las Vegas NABC next month, the TD would be called. I would be ejected from
> the game and suspended for a month at least.
>
> Marv
> Marvin L. French
> San Diego, California


Are you for real?  Only a month? Put me on the AC and I'll hold out for a YEAR!   It is of great interest to me,. as a native New Yorker, to find that our failings have been so clearly identified by someone from  San Diego. California. As I remember , we did export a great number of opportunists to the lesser coast some  many  years ago.  Something about gold, or was it fool's gold?


Was your analogy about rats possibly a comment to indicate that there are a healthy disproportionate number of type "A"s in New York? Or was it just Marv at his finest in injecting unrelated trivia?

Kojak






--part1_122.54788bb.28eb8c38_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 07:50:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92Lnth08257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:49:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92LnnH08253 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:49:50 +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 f92Lirw01840 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <028701c14b8b$5c25c100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01ad01c14b61$4b7d5360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:34:50 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > >"Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled psychs by saying that the > >burden of proof will be on the player [n.b., not *pair*], if he makes more > >than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not using excessive, > >frivolous, or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding." > > Sounds an awful lot like "prove you aren't cheating." :-( > > If a TD, or a player, wants to accuse someone of cheating, or > excessive or (in particular) frivolous or unsportsmanlike psyching, > it seems to me the burden of proof should be on the accuser. Yes, it > might be hard to prove. Tough. > A player would never make such an accusation, I hope. Players merely report psychs that they feel ought to be reported. There is no reporting system in place now, although at one time players were told they must report psychs to the TD. That didn't last long. Without a tracking system, the whole question becomes moot unless you're a club TD who has asked players to report any and all psychs made against them. Surely, Ed, a club running 7-8 tables a session has to have some way of dealing with a pair who comes in and psychs frequently and outrageously, spoiling the game for everyone. You might argue with the criteria suggested by the ACBL, but then it behooves you to suggest something better. A line has to be drawn somewhere. The "purist" approach that psychs should not be limited in any way is not pragmatically acceptable, as it doesn't work in practice. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 08:26:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92MQNq08288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:26:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92MQIH08284 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:26:18 +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 f92MLLw05276 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:21:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <02cb01c14b90$737c8a00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <122.54788bb.28eb8c38@aol.com> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] What makes Bridge popular? (was: another wild idea) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:16:48 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojack wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > > But that was in New York City, in another time. If I were to try that at > > the > > > Las Vegas NABC next month, the TD would be called. I would be ejected from > > > the game and suspended for a month at least. > > > > > Are you for real? Only a month? Put me on the AC and I'll hold out for a > > YEAR! It is of great interest to me,. as a native New Yorker, to find > > that our failings have been so clearly identified by someone from San > > Diego. California. As I remember , we did export a great number of > > opportunists to the lesser coast some many years ago. Something about > > gold, or was it fool's gold? I lived in New York for a while in the 50s, and have had many friends from there. I love New York humor, but had to learn to like it while living and working there. It doesn't seem like a "failure" to me, but something to be enjoyed. Angelenos are (were, at least) less funny in their table banter. > > Was your analogy about rats possibly a comment to indicate that there are a > healthy disproportionate number of type "A"s in New York? Or was it just Marv > at his finest in injecting unrelated trivia? A far-fetched analogy, admittedly. It's just that when I read about that experiment I thought right away of the Bridge Weeks in Los Angeles during the 50s and 60s. The timid played in side games until they felt ready to jump into the "arena" of championships, where they knew their skin had to be tough. And they loved it! Toby Stone could get away with saying almost anything, because he radiated an aura of good humor with his constant chit-chat. I learned when kibitzing him that the chatting often was used to cover up the fact that he was simultaneously trying to solve a horrendous bidding problem. He was one of the most ethical players of the time, and watching him (and Bill Root) taught me what good ethics meant, with all bids and defensive plays made with even tempo. Lew Mathe, who rarely praised anyone, told me in a bar conversation that he thought Tobias Stone was one of the greatest players of the time, but that one of his partners (not Roth or Root) was "nothing but a crook." Please excuse the added trivia, Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 09:18:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f92NIDP13364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:18:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f92NI9H13360 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:18:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA14692 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:21:41 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:00:08 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:06:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/10/2001 09:05:42 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] >It would be preferable, I think, to pass a regulation requiring >nincompoops to put a red dot on their card (the sort we used to use >for alerting the opponents to unusual lead or defense agreements) >identifying them as nincompoops. Australia colour-codes permitted systems. Those pairs using the simplest type of system (basic Acol or Standard) put a green dot on their system cards. Furthermore, any pairs using a green-dot system, who also have less than a certain number of masterpoints, are also permitted to add a brown dot to their system cards. Partnerships with brown dots may prohibit their opponents from using red dot conventions (such as wacky two-bid openings) against them. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 10:05:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9305T713397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:05:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9305OH13393 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:05:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.14.19] (helo=[217.35.14.19]) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15oZSb-0000yC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:00:25 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011002130153.00b0eee0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011002130153.00b0eee0@127.0.0.1> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:00:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >That won't work, because, as Marv likes to remind us, nobody ever >looks at convention cards anymore. Perhaps the WBFLC could consider >requiring them to put red dots on their foreheads. > >It would be interesting to discover how many players find psychs so >abhorrent that they would be willing to identify themselves publicly >as nincompoops in return for the assurance that they will not be >psyched against. Or, alternatively, that being psyched against would become a badge of pride, something to be slipped into conversation as a vouchsafe. -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 10:09:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93090c13409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:09:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9308tH13405 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:08:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id UAA05116 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA26732 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:03:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110030003.UAA26732@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Rainsford > Or, alternatively, that being psyched against would become a badge of > pride, something to be slipped into conversation as a vouchsafe. Or perhaps a means of improving one's score? (Yes, maybe I have bought the ACBL propaganda too easily.) I was wondering whether, in Adam's world, I could wear a green dot on my forehead, making it mandatory for the opponents to psych against 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 Wed Oct 3 10:32:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f930W8T13427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:32:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f930W0H13423 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:32:01 +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 AAA15629 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:27:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:22:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <200110021434.PAA04790@tempest.npl.co.uk> >Robin Barker wrote: >> >> You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, >> your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings >> (under L40D). > >While the SO *could* use this law to ban many psyches I don't think that >it is an approach we should condone*. If Herman (or anyone else) wants to >bid that way, and has no systemic protection then they should be allowed >to do so. Obviously the regulations on disclosure need to address the >issue. > >The Orange book refers to weak opening one bids "by agreement" not merely >"when an understanding exists" so Herman shouldn't have a problem with his >psyches in the UK (at least under this rule). > >Tim When I was playing with Proddy he had a very good idea of which psyches I perpetrated. It was not in any sense a partnership agreement since he didn't agree with me about it, but he still knew I did it. He bent over backwards to punish me for these efforts, and would even alert the Probst NT ( overcalling 1NT over a minor on a weak 2 in hearts is the best description), and then do his best to nail me. I don't think that this can be regulated, as Law 40 allows me to make any call or play which is a departure from our agreements. John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 10:58:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f930w6r18117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:58:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f930w0H18097 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:58:00 +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 RAA28012; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:52:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200110030052.RAA28012@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:22:31 BST." Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:52:54 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > When I was playing with Proddy he had a very good idea of which psyches > I perpetrated. It was not in any sense a partnership agreement since he > didn't agree with me about it, but he still knew I did it. He bent over > backwards to punish me for these efforts, and would even alert the > Probst NT ( overcalling 1NT over a minor on a weak 2 in hearts is the > best description), and then do his best to nail me. This kind of explains why the third word in your post is "was" . . . :) -- 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 Oct 3 14:30:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f934TwI29977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f934TqH29950 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:29:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011003042448.WUEW28524.femail22.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:24:48 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:26:24 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry for the off-topic.. I am flying into Gatwick on the 17th and have to arrange to get to Paris. Should I just book a flight? (might involve a fair wait) or are there other ways to get to Paris - a train, perhaps? Thanks Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 17:17:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f937G6o03307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:16:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alisier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f937G0H03303 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:16:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by alisier.wanadoo.fr; 3 Oct 2001 09:10:57 +0200 Received: from olivier (193.249.80.106) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr; 3 Oct 2001 09:10:54 +0200 Message-ID: <006401c14bda$7382f300$6a50f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:10:15 +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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, you have the Eurostar witch is a TGV (High speed train, over 300 Km/H) through the channel. Something between 1 & 2 hours between London and Paris - Gare du Nord. Less expensive than plane. Olivier. ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:26 AM Subject: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? > Sorry for the off-topic.. > > I am flying into Gatwick on the 17th and have to arrange to get to Paris. > Should I just book a flight? (might involve a fair wait) or are there other > ways to get to Paris - a train, perhaps? > > Thanks > Linda > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 18:53:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f938pWu05890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:51:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f938pPH05875 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f938kPc16178 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:46:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:46 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? 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: <006401c14bda$7382f300$6a50f9c1@olivier> Olivier wrote: > Yes, you have the Eurostar witch is a TGV (High speed train, over 300 > Km/H) through the channel. Something between 1 & 2 hours between That's on the French side of the channel with properly engineered track. On the English side it runs at more like 30km/h and the whole journey is over 3 hours. If travelling from central London the train is great (but I think you are too late to get the cheapest tickets). Starting from Gatwick it will be quicker to fly even if you have a three hour wait (there's good shopping there to pass the time). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 19:10:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f939AVt09344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:10:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f939AOH09329 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:10:25 +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 f9392J821159; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:20 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9392JP16851; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:19 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:02:19 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 KAA04696; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA05125; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:02:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110030902.KAA05125@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, olivier.beauvillain@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Yes, you have the Eurostar witch is a TGV (High speed train, over 300 Km/H) > through the channel. Something between 1 & 2 hours between London and > Paris - Gare du Nord. Less expensive than plane. > Olivier. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Linda Trent > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:26 AM > Subject: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? > > > > Sorry for the off-topic.. > > > > I am flying into Gatwick on the 17th and have to arrange to get to Paris. > > Should I just book a flight? (might involve a fair wait) or are there > other > > ways to get to Paris - a train, perhaps? > > > > Thanks > > Linda > > It takes a little longer the Oliver thinks, the train is not so high-speed between the coast and London. There is also the issue of getting from Gatwick to the London/Paris route which connects at London Waterloo or Ashford. The UK Railtrack website gives a minimum of 4 hours for Gatwick Airport to Paris Gare du Nord. 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 Oct 3 19:31:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f939St813186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:28:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f939SlH13167 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:28:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15oiFi-000HHR-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:23:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:55:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01ad01c14b61$4b7d5360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <028701c14b8b$5c25c100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <028701c14b8b$5c25c100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Ed Reppert" > >> >"Clubs should regulate the use of uncontrolled psychs by saying that the >> >burden of proof will be on the player [n.b., not *pair*], if he makes >more >> >than two psychic calls per session, to prove that he is not using >excessive, >> >frivolous, or unsportsmanlike psychic bidding." >> >> Sounds an awful lot like "prove you aren't cheating." :-( >> >> If a TD, or a player, wants to accuse someone of cheating, or >> excessive or (in particular) frivolous or unsportsmanlike psyching, >> it seems to me the burden of proof should be on the accuser. Yes, it >> might be hard to prove. Tough. >> >A player would never make such an accusation, I hope. Players merely report >psychs that they feel ought to be reported. There is no reporting system in >place now, although at one time players were told they must report psychs to >the TD. That didn't last long. Without a tracking system, the whole question >becomes moot unless you're a club TD who has asked players to report any and >all psychs made against them. > >Surely, Ed, a club running 7-8 tables a session has to have some way of >dealing with a pair who comes in and psychs frequently and outrageously, >spoiling the game for everyone. You might argue with the criteria suggested >by the ACBL, but then it behooves you to suggest something better. A line >has to be drawn somewhere. The "purist" approach that psychs should not be >limited in any way is not pragmatically acceptable, as it doesn't work in >practice. So, you have a rule that a pair that psyches more than twice a session automatically has to explain their actions. Fine. What we object to is the assumption of guilt, which is unreasonable. I do not see why you need a pair needs to defend themselves from an unacceptable position, but I am happy that they have to defend themselves. Compare it with a player who pulls his partner's slow penalty double. The TD will investigate, ask him questions, consider, confer and rule. But he will *not* go to the table assuming him guilty until proved otherwise. In the same way if a pair is psyching more frequently that will usually be considered acceptable it is very reasonable that the matter should be reported to the TD, who will investigate, ask questions, consider, confer and rule. But why on earth should he consider the pair guilty when he first approaches them? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 20:38:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93Ab8g23881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:37:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93Ab1H23867 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:37:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ojJk-000CQK-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:32:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:20:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? References: <200110030902.KAA05125@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200110030902.KAA05125@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes Olivier wrote: >> Yes, you have the Eurostar witch is a TGV (High speed train, over 300 Km/H) >> through the channel. Something between 1 & 2 hours between London and >> Paris - Gare du Nord. Less expensive than plane. When the French President opened a section of the route from Paris to London he said something like: "I am pleased that the English have done this so well. For you will see little of the French countryside as you pass through at 150 km/hr, but you will be able to see the lovely English countryside. They have made sure of this by keeping trains on their side of the tunnel to no more than 70 km/hr in respect for the feelings of their passengers." I could not agree more with the French President. It takes England roughly eleven years to *agree* to build a railway, before they actually start. How long has the Chunnel been open? Well, England is at last starting to build a railway to it. >It takes a little longer the Oliver thinks, the train is not so high-speed >between the coast and London. There is also the issue of getting from >Gatwick to the London/Paris route which connects at London Waterloo or >Ashford. The UK Railtrack website gives a minimum of 4 hours for Gatwick >Airport to Paris Gare du Nord. My Railplanner advises changing at Tonbridge and Ashford, or London Bridge and Waterloo East. It gives journey times as between five and six hours. Myself, I would recommend Victoria, and a taxi to Waterloo, but I doubt that would get it below five hours, and taxi-drivers at Victoria are notorious as being sharks on the lookout for Americans!!!!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 21:43:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93BgTd29950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:42:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93BgMH29946 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:42:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-110.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.110]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f93BbLB13172 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:37:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBADF0B.876F2564@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:48:59 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110021434.PAA04790@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > Do explain me on which regulation you base that. > > > > You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, > your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings > (under L40D). > Sorry Robin, but you need to do better than that. Alain says : "this is not allowed". I ask "where do you read that". You say "that is not allowed". Please try again. Why is this not allowed ? Don't say "because there is a regulation". Tell me what the regulation is and why it applies to this case. Really, do try ! And there is no need to think that Belgian regulations are different from others - they have all been copied from the same original. Use whatever version of any systems regulation that you want. -- 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 Oct 3 21:46:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93BkDE29962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:46:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f93Bk7H29958 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:46:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 2216 invoked by uid 50005); 3 Oct 2001 11:36:15 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4163. . Clean. Processed in 0.133593 secs); 03 Oct 2001 11:36:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dell600) ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Oct 2001 11:36:15 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:41:16 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200110030902.KAA05125@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:20:49 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: The one delaying factor which most respondents seem to have missed is that if Linda should take the train, she will need to clear British Customs and Immigration at Gatwick. This can take quite some time if your plane doesn't happen to be one of the first of the batch that arrive from the USA each morning. Customs and Immigration shouldn't be necessary at Gatwick if Linda simply stays in the transit area for the plane to Paris. Brian. >Robin Barker writes >Olivier wrote: > >>> Yes, you have the Eurostar witch is a TGV (High speed train, over 300 Km/H) >>> through the channel. Something between 1 & 2 hours between London and >>> Paris - Gare du Nord. Less expensive than plane. > > When the French President opened a section of the route from Paris to >London he said something like: > > "I am pleased that the English have done this so well. For you will >see little of the French countryside as you pass through at 150 km/hr, >but you will be able to see the lovely English countryside. They have >made sure of this by keeping trains on their side of the tunnel to no >more than 70 km/hr in respect for the feelings of their passengers." > > I could not agree more with the French President. It takes England >roughly eleven years to *agree* to build a railway, before they actually >start. How long has the Chunnel been open? Well, England is at last >starting to build a railway to it. > >>It takes a little longer the Oliver thinks, the train is not so high-speed >>between the coast and London. There is also the issue of getting from >>Gatwick to the London/Paris route which connects at London Waterloo or >>Ashford. The UK Railtrack website gives a minimum of 4 hours for Gatwick >>Airport to Paris Gare du Nord. > > My Railplanner advises changing at Tonbridge and Ashford, or London >Bridge and Waterloo East. It gives journey times as between five and >six hours. > > Myself, I would recommend Victoria, and a taxi to Waterloo, but I >doubt that would get it below five hours, and taxi-drivers at Victoria >are notorious as being sharks on the lookout for Americans!!!!! > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 >Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 21:52:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93BqU529974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:52:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93BqPH29970 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:52:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-97.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.97]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 40D501D52D4 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:47:25 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] What is a convention?? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:41:02 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <000501c146f2$2853e020$0c707ad5@pbncomputer> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: >It's just that I refuse to believe that the Laws are designed to protect >your opponents when you have such as: > >KJ10987 A3 965 A2 > > >You see, if it went (1N) Pass (2H) and Stevenson to your left alerted, >and you asked him why, and he said that he didn't have any agreement but >it "might be alertable" (because it might show spades], I'd feel a bit >miffed. How will I bid this hand, now? In a string in similar vein ("Uncertain explanation"), DWS emphasized the need to call the TD in this situation. The TD sends LHO away and asks RHO what he believes their methods to be. LHO returns and play continues - problem solved. The implication is (but DWS refused to be drawn on this) that failure to call the TD might damage your right to redress. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 3 22:23:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93CN8d04044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:23:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93CN2H04023 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:23:02 +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 f93CI1816265; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:18:02 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f93CI0E30210; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:18:00 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:18:00 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA04998; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:18:00 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA05260; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:17:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:17:59 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110031217.NAA05260@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > > You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, > > your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings > > (under L40D). > > > > Sorry Robin, but you need to do better than that. > > Alain says : "this is not allowed". > > I ask "where do you read that". > > You say "that is not allowed". > > Please try again. > > Why is this not allowed ? > I'm not sure why you are being so perverse, but here goes. WBF Partnership understanding to open 1S on hands with 0-3 points is a HUM "For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter of partnership agreement: a.A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an average hand (an average hand contains 10 HCP). b.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass. c.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be made with values a king or more below average strength. d.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows (a) either length or shortage in a specified suit or (b) either length in one suit or length in another." The Herman 1S fits b. and c. So is not permitted except where HUMs are permitted. EBU (Orange book: levels 1-4) Partnership understanding to open 1S on hands with 0-3 points prevents you from playing any conventions after 1S opener. Partnership understanding to open 1S on hands with 0-3 points and less than 3 spades is not permitted. "12.2.4 1H and 1S openings may be played as any one of: (a) natural, 4+ cards, not forcing (b) natural, 5+ cards, not forcing 14.1 One of a Suit Opening Bids 14.1.1 Minimum opening bids. * The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except * You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter. * You may not open conventional 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by agreement. * The minimum agreement for suit length for 1H or 1S is four cards; except * You may open 1H or 1S on 3 cards by agreement but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter." A 0-3 hand can not be rule of 18 (a 7-6-0-0 3 count is only "rule of" 16). So a Herman 1S is not allowed at EBU level 4 or below [ unless it shows 3 spades, in which case no conventions can be played thereafter ]. So it can not be played in EBU events except the Spring Foursomes and international trials. 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 Oct 3 22:29:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93CTjL05458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:29:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93CTcH05432 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:29:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f93COc455964 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:24:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011003080837.00b0a910@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:24:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <028701c14b8b$5c25c100$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010928141556.00afa800@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010928164632.00afbd80@127.0.0.1> <004301c14933$51803140$6c3f7bd5@dodona> <006501c1494d$f712d300$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <007101c149d9$a7d57680$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <00f101c14a99$26d17f00$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <018901c14b02$d0b623e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <01ad01c14b61$4b7d5360$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:34 PM 10/2/01, Marvin wrote: >Surely, Ed, a club running 7-8 tables a session has to have some way of >dealing with a pair who comes in and psychs frequently and outrageously, >spoiling the game for everyone. You might argue with the criteria >suggested >by the ACBL, but then it behooves you to suggest something better. A line >has to be drawn somewhere. The "purist" approach that psychs should not be >limited in any way is not pragmatically acceptable, as it doesn't work in >practice. This is valid in theory, but in practice, nothing stops an ACBL-sanctioned club from dealing with such a pair in any way they choose, or, for that matter, barring psychs completely. It has long been the policy of the ACBL (and a good one, pragmatically speaking) to allow club owners to run their games pretty much however they please, even if it means that TFLB has to take a back seat. This is legal, as the club owner's power ultimately rests on his total discretion as to whom he allows to play in his club. If you report to your unit (if you complain to a higher level of authority, you will be told to start at your unit level) that the so-and-so club does not permit psyching, in clear violation of L40, you'll be told that, yes, that is technically illegal, but it's what that club's players want, and you'd be well advised to simply play elsewhere. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 00:21:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93EKD411421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:20:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93EK8H11417 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:20:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:15:05 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [65.90.219.58] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 02:30:26 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2001 14:15:05.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC9B5280:01C14C15] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Dimitr Georgiev To: Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 11:52 AM Subject: [BLML] L30 | I have been asked for a ruling. The problem is: | | N is the dealer. Befor he bids S passes out of turn. | Then N bids (not simultaneouslly). What is the corect | ruling? | | Regards | | Dimitr The OPOOT made it at one point west's turn [at RHO's turn when north BOOT]. With no action as yet from west [neither condoning or rejecting the OPOOT] the BOOT makes it east's turn. If east condones the BOOT he also condones the OPOOT without penalty and the auction continues. If east rejects the BOOT it is canceled [etc] leaving the OPOOT to be dealt with. If the OPOOT is condoned by a pass then N must repeat his bid. If condoned by a bid then he must make a sufficient call which might be dealt with as a change of call, L26 etc. If not condoned, the pass is cancelled and must be repeated at the next opportunity and one of two things must happen. [1] If west passed at his turn then north must repeat his call. Or.[2] if west makes a legal non pass call then north must make a legal call as noted in the preceding paragraph. But there is no third option- [3] for when partner POOT before an opening bid. Aha, this must be the object of the question. West will have made no call- pass or bid- at all. And north has no basis for any action under [1] or [2]. Might this mean the board is unplayable???????? I am thinking that in part, the difficulty arises as a result of treating POOT different from BOOT. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 00:46:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93EjYF12417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:45:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93EjSH12401 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:45:28 +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 QAA28009; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:39:23 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA12677; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:40:22 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004163355.00a7bc20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 16:39:39 +0200 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:22 3/10/2001 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >When I was playing with Proddy he had a very good idea of which psyches >I perpetrated. It was not in any sense a partnership agreement since he >didn't agree with me about it, but he still knew I did it. He bent over >backwards to punish me for these efforts, and would even alert the >Probst NT ( overcalling 1NT over a minor on a weak 2 in hearts is the >best description), and then do his best to nail me. > >I don't think that this can be regulated, as Law 40 allows me to make >any call or play which is a departure from our agreements. AG : right so ! But the mere fact that partner knows that your 1NT overcall may be based on long/weak hearts makes it a convention - not an illegal one : it is similar to the Comic NT, which in many countries is recognized. It would be more correct for partner to alert 1NT and tell the opponents you play a 2-way 1NT overcall (genuine NT or weak cum hearts). On big advantage of this is that he would no more feel compelled to nail you. Less fun, but more MPs. I had a similar case : with one of my partners, I psyched thrice in two months time the same bid : (1 major)-2 minor-(positive action)-2NT with a weak, shapely raise in partner's minor. At that point, I felt we had developed an understanding, and we began to alert the 2NT bid as 2-way : genuine or weak shapely raise. The effect was even more devastating than after a psyche, especially when the 2NT bid was genuine. Best regards, Alain. >John >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 >451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 01:02:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93F2CU16441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:02:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (pn2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.10.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93F25H16417 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (unknown [203.197.82.100]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20274996; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:26:59 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3BBB2502.D1FFA144@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 20:17:30 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ltrent@home.com Cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, It is so nice to see so many people responding to topic off our objective of list. This is great show of fraternity and human side. I am proud to be member of this list. BRgds Yogesh ================================== Linda Trent wrote: > Sorry for the off-topic.. > > I am flying into Gatwick on the 17th and have to arrange to get to Paris. > Should I just book a flight? (might involve a fair wait) or are there other > ways to get to Paris - a train, perhaps? > > Thanks > Linda > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 01:05:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93F5eP17279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:05:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93F5YH17266 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA02538; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:59:30 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA29672; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:00:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004165145.00a87970@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 16:59:55 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <3BB9B39B.30704EB3@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011003132753.00a5c020@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:31 2/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Do explain me on which regulation you base that. > >There are regulations that say that you are not allowed >(unless making your system yellow) to pass on hands stronger >than those _normally_ considered openable. Not that are >stronger than hands that are opened. > >Also there are regulations that prohibit openings that >promise weak hands. My Spanish openings do no such things. AG : I tried playing a 1C opening that showed either 0-5 (no 6-card major) or 15-17 (no 5-card major). (other bids were : pass = 6-11, 1D = 18+, 1H/S natural 10-18, 1NT/2C/2D natural 12-14, 2H/S natural 6 cards 0-9). This was not allowed. I don't know on which regulations, but I feel your 1H opening (either natural 10-21 or any 0-3) isn't different, it its principle, from my 1C opening. If the latter is disallowed, the first must be. Or is there any subtle difference that I don't perceive ? (I must warn you : if you answer that my 1C would be allowed, I intend to play it) >I know that we are in gray areas, and I am a bit more open >in my admission that I "always" open this than most players, >some of whom will also always open them but then say it's >the first time in half a year (also true). > >(I still remember the time when the same psych occured not >just on my table but also the next one - why should the >other one be allowed and mine not, simply because I admit to >having done it before ?) > >So I repeat, why is this an inadmissible system ? > >-- >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 Oct 4 04:21:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93IL5n18190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:21:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93IKrH18151 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-475.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.219]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 04C3455CDC for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:15:50 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:09:27 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Roger Pewick writes: >| I have been asked for a ruling. The problem is: >| >| N is the dealer. Before he bids S passes out of turn. >| Then N bids (not simultaneously). What is the correct >| ruling? >| >| Regards >| >| Dimitr > > The OPOOT made it at one point west's turn [at RHO's turn when north > BOOT]. > > With no action as yet from west [neither condoning or rejecting the > OPOOT] the BOOT makes it east's turn. > > If east condones the BOOT he also condones the OPOOT without penalty > and the auction continues. I don't see the authority for this - what gives East the right to condone the OPOOT? The OPOOT occurred first and ISTM it should be dealt with first. I think Ed Reppert's approach is the right one. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 04:21:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93IL2C18185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:21:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93IKrH18150 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:20:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-475.easynet.co.uk [212.134.25.219]) by latimer.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A2AAF55C00 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:15:48 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 19:09:26 +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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Ed Reppert writes: >> N is the dealer. Before he bids S passes out of turn. >> Then N bids (not simultaneously). What is the correct >> ruling? > It seems to me that West may elect to call over South's pass [Law > 29A]. If he does so, that makes North's bid out of turn. Now East may > elect to call (or not). So, the possibilities are: > > 1. West elects not to call. The auction reverts to North, whose bid > is in turn. South must pass once [Law 30A] and Law 72B1 may apply. > 2. West elects to call. North has bid out of turn. Now East may > elect to call. > 2a. East elects to call. Thereby forfeiting the right to > penalize [Law 29A]. Auction continues normally. North's bid is UI to > South [Law 16C2]. Agreed, so far > 2b. East elects not to call. North's bid is cancelled, but is > UI to South {16C2 again]. The auction reverts to West, and then > continues normally. No other penalty. Now I disagree. You have already said that North's bid is a BOOT and L31A applies. If West passes, North repeats his bid and there is no penalty. OTOH If West bids, North may make any legal call and South passes either once (L31A2(a)) or for ever (L31A2(b)). Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 04:41:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93IeiX22403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:40:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umc-mail01.missouri.edu (umc-mail01.missouri.edu [128.206.10.216]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93IedH22389 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 04:40:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umc-mail01.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id TTVFYM0K; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:35:40 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:49:05 -0500 To: , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The remarks about immigration and customs at Gatwick agree pretty well with my experience. Immigration can take close to an hour, most of it standing in line and waiting. Customs usually is a walk-through unless one looks like some sort of suspicious character instead of a sleep-deprived American travelling on a minimal budget. If you need to go to Waterloo, take BR to London Bridge station and a taxi from there. It shouldn't run to much more than 5 pounds for the taxi. The rail service to London Bridge is cheaper than the Gatwick express and just about as frequent and fast. (The station transfer can be cone by underground, Northern line to Elephant and Castle, Bakerloo line to Waterloo, but it involves a lot of walking, and it would be pretty slow.) The remarks about the speed of the "fast" train to the tunnel are accurate for the English side. They come whirring along at about 40 mph, making more racket than speed. I've seen 'em several times as I waited for locals at suburban stations. On the whole, it probably is faster and cheaper to fly from Gatwick. But I have not done that, and there's still immigration and customs on the French side, and getting where you want to be after that. RE Harris Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 05:01:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93J1MM24983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:01:22 +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 f93J1GH24979 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:01:17 +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 OAA17037 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA08272 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:56:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:56:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110031856.OAA08272@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Robert E. Harris" > and there's still immigration and customs on the French side, When Carol and I flew to Paris (1997?), we walked out of baggage claim and found ourselves on the sidewalk at Orly. I don't know what happened to immigration and customs, but we never saw them! We arrived on a flight from Heathrow but had stayed in the transit lounge there. It was quite a contrast to fly into Marseille, where the French customs inspector could hardly believe I was not bringing in a gift for someone. Or maybe my execrable French accent made "non" and "aucune" sound like "oui." :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 05:32:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93JVmK25008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:31:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93JVfH25004 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:31:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA14807; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:26:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200110031926.MAA14807@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:09:26 BST." Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:26:38 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chas Fellows wrote: > > Ed Reppert writes: > > >> N is the dealer. Before he bids S passes out of turn. > >> Then N bids (not simultaneously). What is the correct > >> ruling? > > > It seems to me that West may elect to call over South's pass [Law > > 29A]. If he does so, that makes North's bid out of turn. Now East may > > elect to call (or not). So, the possibilities are: > > > > 1. West elects not to call. The auction reverts to North, whose bid > > is in turn. South must pass once [Law 30A] and Law 72B1 may apply. It's not quite that simple. There were two irregular calls, by the same side, before the Director was called. As far as I can tell, the Law doesn't really address this situation in a general way. Here's how I would interpret the Laws: Call 1 (the first call) and Call 2 (the second call) were both irregular. Call 1 must be dealt with first. If the opponents accept Call 1, it is treated as a legal call, which means Call 2 is still an irregular call that must be dealt with by the appropriate Law. However, if the opponents do not accept Call 1, it is cancelled, and the auction reverts back to where it was before Call 1 was made---which means that everything that happened after Call 1, INCLUDING CALL 2, is wiped out. Thus, after the penalties for Call 1 are assessed, the auction goes on as if Call 2 never happened. Call 2 cannot be penalized, since as far as the Law is concerned, it has been wiped out and thus does not exist. (Call 2 is still UI, though.) So suppose West does not accept South's pass. The auction reverts to North, and South must pass once. North is *not* required to make his original bid; and North may well bid something else knowing that South is required to pass. If North bids something different, though, North's original bid is UI for South. In fact, since South's pass is now UI for North, this complicates things even further. Suppose North has something like AKQ982 A65 32 K4, and his original opening was 1S. Now, the auction reverts to him, and he must bid knowing that partner must pass for one round, AND WITHOUT KNOWING THAT PARTNER HAD ALREADY PASSED OUT OF TURN. Well, suppose that, in a different situation, you held that hand and knew that your partner was barred for one round, but knew nothing else about his hand. Wouldn't you consider opening 4S, to avoid the possibility of missing a game that should be bid because partner was barred? Well, if this makes 4S a logical alternative, then one could argue that North is not allowed to bid 1S when the auction reverts to him, because the 1S could have been suggested over 4S by the unauthorized information that South passed out of turn. I realize this is complicated, and I apologize if I haven't made this clear enough for everyone to follow. Anyway, to summarize, my conclusions are that if West does not accept South's pass, then: (1) North is not required to make the same bid he already made; (2) because of UI considerations from South's POOT, it may not be legal for North to make the same bid he originally made; (3) if North doesn't make the same bid, the original bid is UI for South. > > 2. West elects to call. North has bid out of turn. Now East may > > elect to call. > > 2a. East elects to call. Thereby forfeiting the right to > > penalize [Law 29A]. Auction continues normally. North's bid is UI to > > South [Law 16C2]. > > Agreed, so far This seems right. It should be noted that "West elects to call" doesn't mean that West will get to call. By accepting the POOT, West has made it his turn to call; but North's BOOT has to be handled at that point. This is something the TD needs to make clear to West when explaining his options over the POOT. Over a more normal POOT, the TD would say something like "You may accept the call, in which case it's your turn to bid and the auction goes on normally"; but here, he would have to say something like "You may accept the call, in which case North's bid is a bid out of turn and we'll have to deal with that before you may make a call." > > 2b. East elects not to call. North's bid is cancelled, but is > > UI to South {16C2 again]. The auction reverts to West, and then > > continues normally. No other penalty. > > Now I disagree. You have already said that North's bid is a BOOT and L31A > applies. If West passes, North repeats his bid and there is no penalty. > OTOH If West bids, North may make any legal call and South passes either > once (L31A2(a)) or for ever (L31A2(b)). Right, IMHO. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 05:36:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93Jai925024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:36:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93JacH25020 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:36:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp180-190.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.190]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CDCA37404; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:31:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005f01c14c41$200d1cc0$beb4f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Dimitr Georgiev" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] L30B1, lead penalties Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:58:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I would like to thanks all, who took a place in this >very useful and in some moments very hot discussion, >especially Ton, Grattan and David. > >Dimitr Georgiev Hot? How long are you reading this stuff? Anyway, it was a pleasure. Willing to tell us your conclusion (not the one in which you tell us that we make your life difficult, but the one concerning your future decision when this happens) ? You noticed that David didn't send in an example yet? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 05:57:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93JvMj25048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:57:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12904.mail.yahoo.com (web12904.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f93JvGH25044 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 05:57:17 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20011003195217.85000.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.80.128.161] by web12904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:52:17 PDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Dimitr Georgiev Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 To: Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --- Ed Reppert wrote: > > >N is the dealer. Befor he bids S passes out of > turn. > >Then N bids (not simultaneouslly). What is the > corect > >ruling? > > It seems to me that West may elect to call over > South's pass [Law 29A]. Yes, the problems arise. >If he does so, that makes North's bid out of > turn. Now East may > elect to call (or not). So, the possibilities are: > > 1. West elects not to call. The auction reverts to > North, whose bid > is in turn. South must pass once [Law 30A] and Law > 72B1 may apply. Yes, if 1. we have no problems. > 2. West elects to call. North has bid out of turn. > Now East may elect to call. If 2. I don't understand why North has bid out of turn. He bids in his legal turn (he is the dealer). >From other angle - You state that if West elects to call North's bid automatically becomes OOT. In other words - the fact of accepting POOT makes North's bid OOT. That statement is much dificult to me. If a player makes a call in right time the call is in turn, if not - the call is OOT. This is a question of time, isn't it? In L28B we have similar situation. The only difference is that an opponent bids OOT. We do not apply L29A in this case. I think that this situatuion must be subject of new law. What do You think? Regards Dimitr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 06:17:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93KHJZ25075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:17:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93KHDH25071 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.32.116.204] (helo=ELECTROBEAR) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15osN2-0000Gp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:11:56 +0100 From: "Ed Colley" To: "'BLML'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:14:56 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c14c48$121050e0$cc7420d9@ELECTROBEAR> 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, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk These days, London Bridge to Waterloo is just two stops on the Jubiilee Line, assuming the signals are in order. - Ed -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Robert E. Harris Sent: 03 October 2001 19:49 To: ltrent@home.com; BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? If you need to go to Waterloo, take BR to London Bridge station and a taxi from there. It shouldn't run to much more than 5 pounds for the taxi. The rail service to London Bridge is cheaper than the Gatwick express and just about as frequent and fast. (The station transfer can be cone by underground, Northern line to Elephant and Castle, Bakerloo line to Waterloo, but it involves a lot of walking, and it would be pretty slow.) The remarks about the speed of the "fast" train to the tunnel are accurate for the English side. They come whirring along at about 40 mph, making more racket than speed. I've seen 'em several times as I waited for locals at suburban stations. On the whole, it probably is faster and cheaper to fly from Gatwick. But I have not done that, and there's still immigration and customs on the French side, and getting where you want to be after that. RE Harris Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 06:20:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93KKUf25087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:20:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web12908.mail.yahoo.com (web12908.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f93KKPH25083 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:20:25 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <20011003201526.5755.qmail@web12908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [80.80.128.161] by web12908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:15:26 PDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:15:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Dimitr Georgiev Subject: Re: [BLML] L30B1, lead penalties To: Ton Kooijman Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <005f01c14c41$200d1cc0$beb4f1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --- Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > >I would like to thanks all, who took a place in > this > >very useful and in some moments very hot > discussion, > >especially Ton, Grattan and David. > > > >Dimitr Georgiev > > > > Hot? How long are you reading this stuff? Not very long. > Anyway, it was a pleasure. The pleasure is mine. > Willing to tell us your conclusion (not the one in > which you tell us that we > make your life difficult, but the one concerning > your future decision when > this happens) ? Difficult?! I wrote that the discusion was very useful for me and this is my reason to thanks. Nothing more. > You noticed that David didn't send in an example > yet? > > > ton > Dimitr __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 06:27:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93KRYO25103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:27:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93KRSH25099 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:27:29 +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 NAA15923; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:22:27 -0700 Message-Id: <200110032022.NAA15923@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:52:17 PDT." <20011003195217.85000.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:22:25 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dimitr Georgiev wrote: > > 2. West elects to call. North has bid out of turn. > > Now East may elect to call. > > If 2. I don't understand why North has bid out of > turn. He bids in his legal turn (he is the dealer). > >From other angle - You state that if West elects to > call North's bid automatically becomes OOT. In other > words - the fact of accepting POOT makes North's bid > OOT. That statement is much dificult to me. Look at it this way: once West accepts South's "pass", in effect West has said "OK, let's play the board as if South were the dealer." That makes South's call legal and North's subsequent call out of turn. > If a player makes a call in right time the call is in > turn, if not - the call is OOT. This is a question of > time, isn't it? > In L28B we have similar situation. The only difference > is that an opponent bids OOT. We do not apply L29A in > this case. Right, but L28B deliberately includes the words "by an opponent". This makes me think that if the call was by the *partner* of the offender, it was the intent of the Lawmakers that the principle in L28B does *not* apply. So the fact that North has bid in his legal turn isn't relevant. -- 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 Oct 4 06:42:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93Kfo725147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:41:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93KfiH25143 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:41:45 +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 f93KbBj13820 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:37:11 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:35:57 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004163355.00a7bc20@pop.ulb.ac.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 Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > AG : right so ! But the mere fact that partner knows that your 1NT overcall > may be based on long/weak hearts makes it a convention This strikes me as a highly questionable proposition. Elsewhere it is being discussed how "by partnership agreement" comes into it, so I won't go into that here. The 1NT overcall proposes 1NT as the final contract. The possibility of bidding 1NT on an unbalanced and/or weak hand does not, in and of itself, make it a convention. So we have to find the "...message other than..." that this call conveys if we wish to make it conventional and subject to regulation. Given that a standard 1NT call is quite common with a 5-card major and not unheard-of with a 6-card minor, it's a real stretch to claim that "denies 6 spades but not 6 hearts" and "denies 6-card major" is a particularly meaningful distributional message to send. Alternatively, perhaps the Probst 1NT might occasionally be made with a bust and some *other* suit, just to remove any accusation it relates specifically to hearts... The real question, I think, isn't "is it a convention," but "is it so anticipate-able that it becomes an alertable agreement?" That isn't something I can answer without knowing the details. For now it is just one more thing for me to put in my bag of tricks and surprise my partner with *cackling evilly* GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 07:00:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93Kxma25161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:59:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93KxfH25157 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:59:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-53-177.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.53.177] helo=dawnhass) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15ot2I-000GvL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 21:54:35 +0100 Message-ID: <003901c14c4e$24c5fe00$c9eafea9@dawnhass> From: "Damian Hassan" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004163355.00a7bc20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 21:58:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > At 01:22 3/10/2001 +0100, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >When I was playing with Proddy he had a very good idea of which psyches > >I perpetrated. It was not in any sense a partnership agreement since he > >didn't agree with me about it, but he still knew I did it. He bent over > >backwards to punish me for these efforts, and would even alert the > >Probst NT ( overcalling 1NT over a minor on a weak 2 in hearts is the > >best description), and then do his best to nail me. > > > >I don't think that this can be regulated, as Law 40 allows me to make > >any call or play which is a departure from our agreements. > > AG : right so ! But the mere fact that partner knows that your 1NT overcall > may be based on long/weak hearts makes it a convention - not an illegal one > : it is similar to the Comic NT, which in many countries is recognized. It > would be more correct for partner to alert 1NT and tell the opponents you > play a 2-way 1NT overcall (genuine NT or weak cum hearts). On big advantage > of this is that he would no more feel compelled to nail you. Less fun, but > more MPs. I don't agree with this, though I may well be wrong. I confess that the law on psyches still seems to me to contain a large amount of Orwellian doublethink. John and I had a systemic agreement that 1NT overcall was 15-17 HCP (16-18 if 4333), balanced or semi-balanced, with a stopper. John, however, on about three occasions during our 8 (?) year partnership, overcalled 1NT with a weak hand and a 6 card heart suit. After the second occasion, I would warn oppo about the possibility that John had psyched this particular bid. I did not regard this as a convention - it was not our agreement, nor did I ever perpetrate this particular psyche. IMO it was AI to oppo that the bid was a possible psyche, but UI to me. Hence John's suggestion that I tried to nail him - I would avoid making any bid that might allow him an easy out if a LA existed. This did mean that we played some 5-3 spade fits in 3NT, (I didn't transfer with a 5 card suit in a balanced hand with stopper), but I don't remember it ever costing. And no, Adam, it wasn't this that brought our partnership to an end - that came when I relocated 250 miles away. It seemed easier to do this than reveal to John just how traumatised I had become:) Damian Hassan (aka Proddy) P.S. David S plays with John on occasion. Has anyone else noticed a degree of paranoia in his postings from time to time? Maybe there's a connection... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 08:22:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93MLoE25215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:21:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93MLiH25211 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:21:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f93MGco22050; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:16:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:11:35 -0400 To: "Brambledown" From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:09 PM +0100 10/3/01, Brambledown wrote: >Now I disagree. You have already said that North's bid is a BOOT and L31A >applies. If West passes, North repeats his bid and there is no penalty. >OTOH If West bids, North may make any legal call and South passes either >once (L31A2(a)) or for ever (L31A2(b)). I said it was a BOOT. I didn't mention 31A. You're right though, and I missed that part. Sorry 'bout that. Law82C now, I guess. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO7uOTr2UW3au93vOEQKKPgCfQPhIeOG0nevbRWRogXWU8f4MsFMAn3mm hKLAk/mH8F4NinM6Mw3wK08r =r0p9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 08:42:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93Mfi828466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:41:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93MfcH28441 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:41:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f93MZdH05807; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:35:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20011003195217.85000.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20011003195217.85000.qmail@web12904.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:34:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 Cc: Dimitr Georgiev Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:52 PM -0700 10/3/01, Dimitr Georgiev wrote: >If 2. I don't understand why North has bid out of >turn. He bids in his legal turn (he is the dealer). Once his partner has called out of turn, the question whether North's bid is in turn depends on whether West accepts South's call. If he does, it is now *West's* turn to bid, not North's. The fact that it was originally North's turn to bid is, it seems to me, irrelevant. >From other angle - You state that if West elects to >call North's bid automatically becomes OOT. In other >words - the fact of accepting POOT makes North's bid >OOT. That statement is much dificult to me. >If a player makes a call in right time the call is in >turn, if not - the call is OOT. This is a question of >time, isn't it? Well, if it's a matter of timing, then we should look at whether North's bid was simultaneous with South's pass. If it was, then Law 33 applies. But from your original post, it didn't seem to me that was the case. If it was *not* simultaneous, then we have, as Adam pointed out, two irregularities with which to deal, and we have to deal with them sequentially. >I think that this situatuion must be subject of new >law. What do You think? The current law seems adequate to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO7uS+b2UW3au93vOEQIjkQCgzQBEcq5RljmmqUfhJDXTpGsX5AsAniW0 NssmquxtnHhc3qLaPFdv1KlD =WQ0Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 08:42:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93MgLw28614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:42:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f93MgFH28601 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:42:16 +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 f93MbGB15755 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:37:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006d01c14c5b$df228180$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110030902.KAA05125@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:33:25 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows" > > The one delaying factor which most respondents seem to have > missed is that if Linda should take the train, she will need to > clear British Customs and Immigration at Gatwick. This can take > quite some time if your plane doesn't happen to be one of the > first of the batch that arrive from the USA each morning. Customs > and Immigration shouldn't be necessary at Gatwick if Linda simply > stays in the transit area for the plane to Paris. > Returning from Paris to Gatwick, you have a customs check at Gatwick and another back in the U. S. British Airways put us on a 7 am flight out of Paris to Gatwick, which was a nightmare. Had to board the airport shuttle van at 4:20 am to ensure getting to CDG airport well ahead of time. With the 1-hour time change, we arrived shortly after 7 am London time, and everything was closed, including food outlets, BA check-in, and customs. After a hungry four-hour layover, we finally took off on the non-stop flight to San Diego. Since this was on Sept 24, the security checks were extremely thorough. I should have put my prized German corkscrew in the checked luggage, as it was confiscated during the personal/carry-on security check at Gatwick. It was comforting to know they had become that thorough, because I had carried it in the opposite direction (on the 10th) thru a nunber of "security" checks with no problem. One woman had a dozen small cans of various French patés in her baggage, which British Customs confiscated, to her chagrin. So Linda, don't buy anything like that. This was my first time on BA, very nice, reminding me of KLM. TV at every seat, with many choices, made the 12-hour flight seen shorter. Good food and free drinks in coach should be copied by American Airlines if they want to regain the load factors they had before Sept 11. I see in the morning paper that AA has halved business class fares, which were exorbitant. That should help. 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 Oct 4 09:06:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93N6Kn00298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:06:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93N6EH00290 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:06:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ov0m-000NUR-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:01:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:32:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110021434.PAA04790@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3BBADF0B.876F2564@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3BBADF0B.876F2564@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >Robin Barker wrote: >> > Do explain me on which regulation you base that. >> You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, >> your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings >> (under L40D). >Sorry Robin, but you need to do better than that. >Alain says : "this is not allowed". >I ask "where do you read that". >You say "that is not allowed". >Please try again. >Why is this not allowed ? >Don't say "because there is a regulation". Tell me what the >regulation is and why it applies to this case. >Really, do try ! > >And there is no need to think that Belgian regulations are >different from others - they have all been copied from the >same original. Use whatever version of any systems >regulation that you want. If there is one thing of which I can be 100% certain it is that Belgian systems regulations are not the same nor from the same original as those Robin is used to. Why do you suggest that they "have all been copied from the same original"? Do you suggest Belgian systems regs are similar to the GCC? The EBU's Level 3? The Swedish system of dots? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 09:51:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f93NpWM00335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:51:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.254.60.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f93NpQH00331 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:51:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011003234621.ONMO24406.femail42.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:46:21 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:47:27 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <006d01c14c5b$df228180$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks all! Think I understand what I would need to do to train (I have flown into Gatwick several times before) if I choose that. I travelled on the TGV from Geneva to Paris (gosh, was it 1990!) and the train ride was very nice... Wasn't sure how long it would take, so thanks again.... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 10:05:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9405g200355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:05:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9405bH00351 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:05:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15ovwF-000Dlx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:00:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 00:35:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L30B1, lead penalties References: <005f01c14c41$200d1cc0$beb4f1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <005f01c14c41$200d1cc0$beb4f1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman writes > > >>I would like to thanks all, who took a place in this >>very useful and in some moments very hot discussion, >>especially Ton, Grattan and David. >> >>Dimitr Georgiev > > > >Hot? How long are you reading this stuff? >Anyway, it was a pleasure. >Willing to tell us your conclusion (not the one in which you tell us that we >make your life difficult, but the one concerning your future decision when >this happens) ? >You noticed that David didn't send in an example yet? After your last post I felt tact demanded me to abandon the thread. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 11:16:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f941FUi00430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:15:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f941FOH00426 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:15:25 +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 BAA18194 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:10:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:09:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: [BLML] The Wood plays duplicate MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This one I just have to share. As you probably know I've started hosting at a rubber bridge club "The Wood", of which Tim (twm) is also a member, and to get a bit of exposure I bullied the owner into entering a couple of teams in the UK National Inter Club KO's (NICKO). So this evening off we went to play 24 boards of painfully slow bridge at the Little Fotherington Bridge Club (or some such). Charming people, nice game and we won. Louis the van-driver (a popular regular who plays in our one pound game [penny game for the Yanks] and is a winner) picked up A Ax AQxxx AJTxx and opened the obvious 2NT raised to 3. Just made. He was justifiably annoyed when the opponents didn't allow him his 150 honours. "If I'd known that I'd have opened one diamond" he said. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 12:07:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9427R200453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:07:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9427LH00449 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:07:21 +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 BAA18223 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 01:16:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 02:15:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Off Topic - London to Paris? 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 , Linda Trent writes >Sorry for the off-topic.. > >I am flying into Gatwick on the 17th and have to arrange to get to Paris. >Should I just book a flight? (might involve a fair wait) or are there other >ways to get to Paris - a train, perhaps? > >Thanks >Linda > Train to Victoria from gatwick (every 15 minutes). Transfer to Waterloo Internatuional via Underground. Train to Paris (3 hours). >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 17:22:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f947LXc04082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:21:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f947LQH04078 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:21:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-46-170.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.46.170] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15p2k4-000ALM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Oct 2001 08:16:24 +0100 Message-ID: <003601c14ca4$eac96820$c461063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <005f01c14c41$200d1cc0$beb4f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] L30B1, lead penalties Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:18:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L30B1, lead penalties > > After your last post I felt tact demanded me > to abandon the thread. > +=+ I have listed the question as an item for the WBFLC to interpret. There are two conflicting points of view, and since the WBFLC has not spoken I find nothing strange in that. One is the belief that the references from this group of laws are exhaustive, so that in the absence of a x-reference Law 26 is taken not to apply; the other is that Law 26 applies whenever "an offending player's call is withdrawn, and he chooses a different final call for that turn," (and) "he becomes a defender", unless an exclusion is written into the laws. It may be the case that the drafters have been efficient in identifying every possible circumstance in which there should be a reference from this group of laws to Law 26, but they would have been remarkably foolish to make such an assumption, I do not believe that they did, and I believe the principle is - and should be confirmed - that Law 26 applies to any case where the facts fit its preamble and the laws do not exclude its application. ~ 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 Oct 4 17:28:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f947SVT04095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:28:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f947SPH04091 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:28:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-116.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.116]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f947NKB11022 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:23:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBB2431.3A471681@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:44:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110031217.NAA05260@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Robin, all, Don't think I was under the impression that Robin (or anyone) would not find under what regulation they were trying to say the Spanish Spade (we've used the acronym H1H before - Herman's 1 Heart) was not allowed, I knew full well what they would come up with. Just so that we'll know where to start I've asked him to write it out. It's probably best to continue from the WBF regulations, not the EBU ones ? Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > > You have a parnership understanding to open 1S with 0-3 points, > > > your sponsoring organisation probably forbid such understandings > > > (under L40D). > > > > I'm not sure why you are being so perverse, but here goes. > > WBF > > Partnership understanding to open 1S on hands with 0-3 points is a HUM > > "For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any > System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter > of partnership agreement: > _as a matter of partnership agreement_ That sentence must mean something. I agree that there is partnership understanding, in the sense that at the very least, partner may be aware that I have done this before, and that I may do it again. I also agree that this is information that needs to be available to opponents. I am quite aware that this availability is, in practical terms, usually non-existent or even impossible, and I will rule that we need to ask the question "had you known that this player is able to do this, would you have acted differently ?". But that is partnership understanding and laws covering MI. We are talking here partnership agreement and system regulations. So let's read again : > "For the purpose of this Policy, a Highly Unusual Method (HUM) means any > System that exhibits one or more of the following features, as a matter > of partnership agreement: > > a.A Pass in the opening position may have the values generally > accepted for an opening bid of one, and the player who > passes may hold values a queen or more above the strength of an > average hand (an average hand contains 10 HCP). > It's not that one (as Robin never claims BTW) although I have seen it being tried. > b.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > weaker than pass. > It might be that one. See that a- does not repeat the partnership agreement bit, while b- does repeat it ! > c.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > made with values a king or more below average strength. > It might be that one, again the partnership agreement is repeated. (or is this just a bit of bad editing - first putting it in general and then repeating it in 3 of the four cases) > d.By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level shows > (a) either length or shortage in a specified suit or > (b) either length in one suit or length in another." > It's not that one. > The Herman 1S fits b. and c. So is not permitted except where HUMs are > permitted. > So there we are - "by partnership agreement". What does that mean ? Surely it cannot simply mean that anyone who has performed a particular psyche once, is not allowed to do that same psyche again ? I'm pretty certain that this is not what most of us want it to mean. OK, I admit that I've gone a bit further. I have discovered that this particular psyche works rather well, I have experimented with it, and I know in which situations I can pull it, and when to leave it alone. Surely you are not going to ban me simply because of experience ? OK, I admit that I've gone further still. I have not kept this experience to myself (as some people undoubtedly do) and I have stated that I will do this same psyche when it comes up again. But does that make me an honest player, or a dishonest one ? I don't see that by admitting to having this experience I have crossed any lines into "systemic" territory. Have I gone further still ? Well, with some partners I might have. Although I play with many different partners (and the particular person opposite has never influenced my decision to psyche or not), some partners have more experience with me than others. Surely the particular partner opposite does not influence the psychic or systemic nature of the H1H ? Surely some other factors must play a part - does partner anticipate and bid differently in fear of a H1H, for instance. Besides, I am the first to say that even with an unknown person opposite, my particular psyching tendency should be info that opponents are entitled to. So if I have crossed a line already, I have done it before, not by the choice of partner. Have I crossed a line by admitting that I do it "always" ? Well, in actual fact I don't do it "always". I do it "almost always", but what does that matter ? Surely you do not expect me to keep a diary of all the third hands I have seen passed to me and whether or not I opened particular 0-1-2-3-4 point hands ? No, I really don't believe I have crossed any lines into "systemic" territory yet. Not if you want to draw the lines on a sensible place that still allows L40A to work. Are there lines that I might cross, making the H1H systemic after all ? Well, I happen to think so. First of all, I believe frequency ought to come into it. If I play a 2Di opening 27+, and then I claim to psyche it with a 7-count, that is a totally different ballgame. The frequency of the "psychic" 1He to the real one is more in the area of 1/100. I know that does not make it non-systemic, because the 28+ version of my 2Di Multi opening has a smaller frequency still, but it should count towards it being so. Also the ability to cater for it ought to matter. If I were to play "maximum response is 2He over a doubled 1He, third in hand", this would be something else than what I currently have, where partner will raise a H1H to 4He with suitable hands. I even refuse to play Drury, for precisely that reason ! So to summarise: - system regulations talk of bids that are made "by partnership agreement" - partnership agreement must mean something more than partnership understanding, or L40A has no meaning at all - partnership agreement does not follow from psyching frequency, knowledge about it, or admittance of previous psyches, there must be something else as well - I have no partnership agreement that helps us deal with the psyche when it happens I admit that I may go further with psyches than some (do I ?) but I don't believe I have crossed any lines. If my psyches are banned by system regulations, then so are many more that no-one ever gives a second look to. -- 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 Oct 4 19:33:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f949VjY06615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:31:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f949VcH06595 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:31:39 +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 f949QV805850; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:26:32 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f949QVs12549; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:26:31 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:26:31 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 KAA07282; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:26:30 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA12815; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:26:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:26:30 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman > Just so that we'll know where to start I've asked him to write it out. Thanks a bundle. You make me find and copy various regulations just to prove they use the word "agreement" not "understanding". Obviously I have nothing better to do with my time. I knew you were being perverse. If you had simple asked Alain and me for regulations which apply to partnership understandings not partnership agreements, we could have saved several emails and a lot of text. "L75 B. Violations of Partnership Agreements A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress." I repeat: "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit *agreements*". So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the WBF regulations I quoted. Robin P.S. I object to cute emails which say "You have not answered the question", and when they receive a long detailed reply, the originator says "I knew that all along". -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 4 22:31:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94CUoL05250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:30:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f94CUgH05229 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:30:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-208.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.208]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f94CPeB10586 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:25:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBC13A6.ADF5BE95@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:45:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011003132753.00a5c020@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011004165145.00a87970@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : I tried playing a 1C opening that showed either 0-5 (no 6-card major) > or 15-17 (no 5-card major). > (other bids were : pass = 6-11, 1D = 18+, 1H/S natural 10-18, 1NT/2C/2D > natural 12-14, 2H/S natural 6 cards 0-9). This was not allowed. I don't > know on which regulations, but I feel your 1H opening (either natural 10-21 > or any 0-3) isn't different, it its principle, from my 1C opening. If the > latter is disallowed, the first must be. Or is there any subtle difference > that I don't perceive ? > (I must warn you : if you answer that my 1C would be allowed, I intend to > play it) > Perhaps there is a difference, perhaps there is not. One difference is certainly the frequency. 0-5 in any position is far more frequent than 0-3 in third hand. A second difference is certainly in the coping of the rest of the system. If you are serious about that system (and why not), you must have catch-sequences. Probably partner is not supposed to bid 3NT, and your next reply identifies the weak hand. That makes your 1Cl a matter of partnership agreement, something which I maintain the H1H is not. That is probably the difference. -- 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 Oct 4 22:42:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94CgMv07714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:42:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94CgFH07681 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:42:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-115-159.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.115.159] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15p7kX-000K4p-00; Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:37:14 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c14cd1$212da580$9f7301d5@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Robin Barker" , Cc: References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:35:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 04 October 2001 10:26 Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > I repeat: > "habitual violations within a partnership may > create implicit *agreements*". So your 1S > opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement > and subject to the WBF regulations I quoted. > > Robin > +=+ Caveat::: the WBF Policy on psychic action (see Appendix 4 to General Conditions of Contest) must also be taken into account. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > P.S. I object to cute emails which say "You have > not answered the question", and when they > receive a long detailed reply, the originator says > "I knew that all along". > +=+ I usually assume they did not know it all along, or had motivation for ignoring what they knew. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 00:04:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94E09Q14752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:00:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94E01H14716 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:00:03 +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 NAA19498 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:55:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:52:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Herman > >> Just so that we'll know where to start I've asked him to write it out. > >Thanks a bundle. You make me find and copy various regulations >just to prove they use the word "agreement" not "understanding". >Obviously I have nothing better to do with my time. >I knew you were being perverse. > >If you had simple asked Alain and me for regulations which apply to >partnership understandings not partnership agreements, we could have >saved several emails and a lot of text. > > "L75 B. Violations of Partnership Agreements > > A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his > partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No > player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated > an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as > through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not > entitled to redress." > >I repeat: >"habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit *agreements*". >So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the WBF >regulations I quoted. > >Robin > I find this one very tough Robin. IMO an agreement is one where the continuation of the auction is something which the partnership are aware of. In both the case of the H1H, and the Probst 1NT, the partner excludes from his set of LA's those calls which could be deemed to cater for the known propensity for the call. Note that the phrase is "May create ...", not "Does create ..." I know that Proddy on one occasion, holding enough points to be seriously suspicious of my 1NT overcall did not show his 5-card spade suit with a 2 heart call. He had available a LA which he chose to use instead. As it happened I did have my bid and we played in NT not our spade fit. Is Proddy fielding, or is he being ethical? I'm still with Herman on this one. cheers John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 00:34:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94EYT516974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:34:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe74.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94EYNH16970 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:34:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 07:29:18 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [65.90.218.41] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L30 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:22:02 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2001 14:29:18.0876 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3BD9DC0:01C14CE0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:09 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 | > Roger Pewick writes: | | >| I have been asked for a ruling. The problem is: | >| | >| N is the dealer. Before he bids S passes out of turn. | >| Then N bids (not simultaneously). What is the correct | >| ruling? | >| | >| Regards | >| | >| Dimitr | > | > The OPOOT made it at one point west's turn [at RHO's turn when north | > BOOT]. | > | > With no action as yet from west [neither condoning or rejecting the | > OPOOT] the BOOT makes it east's turn. | > | > If east condones the BOOT he also condones the OPOOT without penalty | > and the auction continues. | | I don't see the authority for this - what gives East the right to condone | the OPOOT? The OPOOT occurred first and ISTM it should be dealt with | first. I think Ed Reppert's approach is the right one. | | Chas Fellows (Brambledown) When constructing law it is important to have a clear picture of the desired outcome and the principles upon which it is to be based. For instance. The law specifies that the first call is to be made by dealer and the second call is to be made by his LHO. Thereafter, calls are to be in clockwise rotation so the third call is to be at the LHO of dealer's LHO. iow the law specifies that the player's proper turn is a function of the dealer and how many turns have taken place. Now, for this auction we have had two calls- first by Player 3 and then by Player 1. The correct turn now belongs to Player 3 as it is specified by law that the third turn belongs to Player 3. From this it appears that little is known about [a] when the right to call begins, [b] when the right to call ends, and [c] when a player does not have right to call. Particularly when there has been a breach of procedure. So, while there is not basis in law for what I asserted neither is there basis in law for what others have asserted. Without going into the hundreds of things that are affected I suggest that it is important that the law specify [a] that the auction begins with the first call [b] after the first call the right to call, or penalize, belongs to the LHO and [c] the player's right to call ends when he has called (or a player not his RHO calls). In addition to who has the right to make the first call. 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 Oct 5 01:32:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94FVTH17013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:31:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94FVMH17009 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:31:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f94FQK828054 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:26:21 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f94FQKL19891 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:26:20 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:26:19 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 QAA07930 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:26:19 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA17363 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:26:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:26:18 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110041526.QAA17363@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk JohnP writes: > I find this one very tough Robin. IMO an agreement is one where the > continuation of the auction is something which the partnership are aware > of. In both the case of the H1H, and the Probst 1NT, the partner > excludes from his set of LA's those calls which could be deemed to cater > for the known propensity for the call. I never said that I thought L75B was the right approach. But there is nothing in the laws which says that there is UI and hence LAs to be avoided. > Note that the phrase is "May create ...", not "Does create ..." Indeed. Appendix 4 to the WBF General CoC describes conditions where "may" becomes "does". [snip] > I'm still with Herman on this one. cheers John I think 3rd in hand openers on 0-3 are part of general bridge knowledge, but experience suggests this is not the case. I would like to see psychic tendencies subject to proper disclosure, and if a partnership never appeared to use their awareness of their psychic tendencies then they never establish a parnership agreement. However, this is not currently the law. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 02:11:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94GBOd17984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:11:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f94GBIH17958 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:11:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id SAA15754; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:05:10 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA24382; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:06:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011005180022.00a7f140@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:05:39 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <3BBC13A6.ADF5BE95@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011003132753.00a5c020@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011004165145.00a87970@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:45 4/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > AG : I tried playing a 1C opening that showed either 0-5 (no 6-card major) > > or 15-17 (no 5-card major). > > (other bids were : pass = 6-11, 1D = 18+, 1H/S natural 10-18, 1NT/2C/2D > > natural 12-14, 2H/S natural 6 cards 0-9). This was not allowed. I don't > > know on which regulations, but I feel your 1H opening (either natural 10-21 > > or any 0-3) isn't different, it its principle, from my 1C opening. If the > > latter is disallowed, the first must be. Or is there any subtle difference > > that I don't perceive ? > > (I must warn you : if you answer that my 1C would be allowed, I intend to > > play it) > > > >Perhaps there is a difference, perhaps there is not. > >One difference is certainly the frequency. 0-5 in any >position is far more frequent than 0-3 in third hand. > >A second difference is certainly in the coping of the rest >of the system. If you are serious about that system (and why >not), you must have catch-sequences. Probably partner is >not supposed to bid 3NT, and your next reply identifies the >weak hand. That makes your 1Cl a matter of partnership >agreement, something which I maintain the H1H is not. > >That is probably the difference. AG : this means that, if I restrict the phony 1C opening to 3rd seat, do not use it systematically (say I do it only with 2+ clubs) and "show" the psyche by dropping partner's next bid (which isn't conventional, just plain bridge logic), I'm back in allowed convention territory (unless R18 is in use). Partner won't indeed bid 3NT, because he's a passed hand. Not even 2NT, since our 1NT response is 8-11. Hmm ... I'll have to speak with Gilles. Oops, agreement ... 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 Fri Oct 5 02:42:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94Gg2g22886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:42:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f94GfuH22882 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:41:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-200.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.200]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f94GasT15593 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:36:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBC59E5.4D36A42E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:45:25 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Robin, I apologize for any inconvenience and discomfort I may have caused you. That was not my intention. My intention is for us to go forward, and the manner in which I choose to do so is that of the confrontation of views. you wrote : > P.S. I object to cute emails which say "You have not answered the question", > and when they receive a long detailed reply, the originator says > "I knew that all along". May I remind you that someone posted "this is illegal". To which I answered "Why?". I was not targeting you, but you cannot blame me for then answering that I knew what you would be answering. I still don't accept the answer, and the fact that I knew I would not accept it does not make it my duty to answer the question "why ?". But let's get on with our discussion. Robin Barker wrote: > > Herman > > > Just so that we'll know where to start I've asked him to write it out. > > Thanks a bundle. You make me find and copy various regulations > just to prove they use the word "agreement" not "understanding". > Obviously I have nothing better to do with my time. > I knew you were being perverse. > Exactly, but as I said, I knew the answer would not satisfy me - should not deter me from asking the question. I could just as easily have responded to the poster who said my systems were illegal "no". > If you had simple asked Alain and me for regulations which apply to > partnership understandings not partnership agreements, we could have > saved several emails and a lot of text. > > "L75 B. Violations of Partnership Agreements > > A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his > partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed). No > player has the obligation to disclose to the opponents that he has violated > an announced agreement and if the opponents are subsequently damaged, as > through drawing a false inference from such violation, they are not > entitled to redress." > First let me repeat : "a player may violate partnership agreement". That does not make the violation a partnership agreement of its own. > I repeat: > "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit *agreements*". I repeat : "may". It still remains up to the TD to decide that they do, and up to the members of blml to decide under which criteria the TD should decide that they do. > So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the WBF > regulations I quoted. > No Robin, now you are yet again repeating that since I have performed this particular psyche before, it has become illegal. Don't you see what you are doing : a once-a-lifetime-psyching rule. I do not accept the principle that only a particular history can create a partnership agreement, without any other factors. Please read my other post again and say what constitutes partnership agreement. -- 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 Oct 5 03:32:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94HWJB22941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:32:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f94HWDH22937 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 03:32:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f94HRBX16825 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:27:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:27 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance 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: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> Robin quoted L75b > A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as > his partner is unaware of the violation Assuming Herman bids in tempo his partner will not "be aware of" the violation (even if knows about Herman's habits he can't know the holding on a specific hand). > (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > agreements, which must be disclosed). Indeed they may. However the use of "may" in this context implies a general idea that this will not generally be the case. Only if you are wilfully intent on reducing psyching should you use this law against the HdW 1S. Which brings us back to there being an understanding rather than an agreement. No doubt this understanding (like many other understandings/agreements) is disclosable in response to opponents' questions but that shouldn't be a problem. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 04:02:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94I1md22963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:01:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94I1hH22959 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:01:43 +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 f94Hugw19520 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001901c14cfd$d71ca4a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200110031217.NAA05260@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3BBB2431.3A471681@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:55:04 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > > I admit that I may go further with psyches than some (do I > ?) but I don't believe I have crossed any lines. If my > psyches are banned by system regulations, then so are many > more that no-one ever gives a second look to. > I don't believe you've crossed any lines either, Herman. In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the opinions of some regarding psychic calls were applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. Marv Marvin L. French, San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 04:12:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94IBqK22980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:11:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94IBkH22976 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:11:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f94I6kw25982 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:06:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003d01c14cff$3f22c7e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:02:05 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Robin Barker" Cc: Why the Cc:, Robin? It makes automatic replying more difficult if one doesn't wish to double post. Or is that what you want? > I repeat: > "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit *agreements*". > So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the WBF > regulations I quoted. > Does the word "may" have no significance, then? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 04:36:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94Iaf929007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:36:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f94IaVH28973 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 04:36:32 +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 f94IV6u04418 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:31:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011004132619.00a05c80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:32:07 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance In-Reply-To: <003d01c14cff$3f22c7e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:02 AM 10/4/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > I repeat: > > "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit >*agreements*". > > So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the WBF > > regulations I quoted. > > >Does the word "may" have no significance, then? Not to speak for Robin, but.... I think it is significant, but I don't think it matters to Herman's 1S. Herman "psyches" in a consistent way, with a specific hand under specific circumstances. If this isn't a case where an implicit agreement has been created, how could anything ever constitute an implicit agreement? Herman's 1S opener is not a psyche--it is a deliberate and consistent choice as to how to open a [rare] hand type. I am not claiming that one psyche creates an implicit agreement. But anyone who consistently psyches by making the same bid under the same circumstances is no longer psyching. >Marv Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 08:37:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f94MaZT12875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:36:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f94MaUH12871 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:36:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA08197 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:40:07 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 08:18:28 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:24:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/10/2001 08:24:02 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: >In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have >noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the >same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the >opinions of some regarding psychic calls were >applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, >it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. I disagree that it is incorrect to treat false cards the same way as false bids. In accordance with the *prior announcement* principle of L40A, my falsecarding style is listed on my system card. Both partner and opponents know in advance that I do not give false count versus suit contracts. Both partner and opponents know in advance that I frequently give false count versus notrump contracts. And both partner and opponents know in advance that I am more likely to give false count when holding an even number of cards. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 11:03:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9512SA01605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:02:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9512LH01588 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:02:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-67-175.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.67.175] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15pJIj-000C1q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 01:57:18 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 01:09:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:24 PM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > Marv wrote: > > >In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have > >noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the > >same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the > >opinions of some regarding psychic calls were > >applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, > >it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. > +=+ Oh, come on Marv..... have you not taken a look at the Code of Practice? This question had recognition and was addressed. False carding with no prior announcement must be 'spontaneous', not 'habitual or systemic'. ~ G ~ +=+ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 14:57:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f954uTN10113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:56:29 +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 f954uNH10084 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:56:23 +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 f954pLw21729 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003201c14d59$4cbf0620$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.1.20011004132619.00a05c80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:48:51 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hey, Grant, be careful -- I didn't write what is attributed to me below - Marv From: "Grant Sterling" > At 11:02 AM 10/4/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > I repeat: > > > "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > >*agreements*". > > > So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the WBF > > > regulations I quoted. > > > > >Does the word "may" have no significance, then? > > Not to speak for Robin, but.... > I think it is significant, but I don't think it matters > to Herman's 1S. Herman "psyches" in a consistent way, with > a specific hand under specific circumstances. If this isn't > a case where an implicit agreement has been created, how > could anything ever constitute an implicit agreement? Herman's > 1S opener is not a psyche--it is a deliberate and consistent > choice as to how to open a [rare] hand type. > I am not claiming that one psyche creates an implicit > agreement. But anyone who consistently psyches by making > the same bid under the same circumstances is no longer > psyching. > > >Marv > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 15:06:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9556UE12623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:06:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9556OH12599 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:06:25 +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 f9551Nw28430 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003a01c14d5a$b38640c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:54:12 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > Marv wrote: > > >In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have > >noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the > >same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the > >opinions of some regarding psychic calls were > >applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, > >it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. > > I disagree that it is incorrect to treat false cards > the same way as false bids. Then you disagree with the Laws, your prerogative. > > In accordance with the *prior announcement* principle > of L40A, my falsecarding style is listed on my > system card. Both partner and opponents know in > advance that I do not give false count versus suit > contracts. Both partner and opponents know in > advance that I frequently give false count versus > notrump contracts. And both partner and opponents > know in advance that I am more likely to give false > count when holding an even number of cards. > If everyone at the table knows what you're doing, then it's not falsecarding, it's system variation. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 15:26:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f955QXY13317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f955QSH13313 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:26:28 +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 f955LQw15661 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:17:18 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > Marv wrote: > > > > >In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have > > >noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the > > >same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the > > >opinions of some regarding psychic calls were > > >applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, > > >it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. > > > +=+ Oh, come on Marv..... have you not taken a > look at the Code of Practice? This question had > recognition and was addressed. > False carding with no prior announcement > must be 'spontaneous', not 'habitual or systemic'. > ~ G ~ +=+ The CoP is not Law, and anyway is not in force over here. Why should I care what the CoP says? Anyway, that's baloney. Need I list all of the "mandatory" falsecards (one word over here), habitual and systemic, that must be in a good player's repertoire? Playing falsecards (including false count), making false bids, it's all the same. Neither can be protected by a concealed partnership understanding, implicit or explicit (L73E), but partnership experience does not give protection *per se*. *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*: "Best results are obtained by defenders who keep up with the game and at a given time are conscious whether a false signal could mislead partner. Very often it can be recognized that partner will not be misled. In such cases, defenders should vary their signals between true and falsecards rather than try to outsmart the declarer." Habitually, but not systemically. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 15:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f955iV113337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:44:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f955iQH13333 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:44:26 +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 f955dPw29672 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004b01c14d60$037ff080$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.1.20011004132619.00a05c80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <003201c14d59$4cbf0620$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 22:38:43 -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 Sorry, Grant, I misread the >>>'s. It's late, the light was bad... - Marv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > Hey, Grant, be careful -- I didn't write what is attributed to me below - > Marv > > From: "Grant Sterling" > > > At 11:02 AM 10/4/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > I repeat: > > > > "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit > > >*agreements*". > > > > So your 1S opener which may be 0-3 is an agreement and subject to the > WBF > > > > regulations I quoted. > > > > > > >Does the word "may" have no significance, then? > > > > Not to speak for Robin, but.... > > I think it is significant, but I don't think it matters > > to Herman's 1S. Herman "psyches" in a consistent way, with > > a specific hand under specific circumstances. If this isn't > > a case where an implicit agreement has been created, how > > could anything ever constitute an implicit agreement? Herman's > > 1S opener is not a psyche--it is a deliberate and consistent > > choice as to how to open a [rare] hand type. > > I am not claiming that one psyche creates an implicit > > agreement. But anyone who consistently psyches by making > > the same bid under the same circumstances is no longer > > psyching. > > > > >Marv > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 16:32:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f956W9413360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:32:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 f956W3H13356 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:32:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-66-5.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.66.5] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15pORe-000Om6-00; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 07:26:51 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c14d67$2a293b40$05427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:29:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > >In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have > > > >noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the > > > >same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the > > > >opinions of some regarding psychic calls were > > > >applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, > > > >it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. > > > > > +=+ Oh, come on Marv..... have you not taken a > > look at the Code of Practice? This question had > > recognition and was addressed. > > False carding with no prior announcement > > must be 'spontaneous', not 'habitual or systemic'. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > The CoP is not Law, and anyway is not in force over > here. Why should I care what the CoP says? > +=+ For the sake of accuracy. My protest was about 'no-one seems to have noticed'. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 17:53:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f957rLe13405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:53:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f957rGH13401 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA27892; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:48:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 05 09:46:08 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K94YSOVKIS0005V8@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:47:38 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:47:43 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:47:34 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 To: "'Dimitr Georgiev'" , Ed Reppert Cc: Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > --- Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > >N is the dealer. Befor he bids S passes out of > > turn. > > >Then N bids (not simultaneouslly). What is the > > corect > > >ruling? > > > > It seems to me that West may elect to call over > > South's pass [Law 29A]. > > Yes, the problems arise. > > >If he does so, that makes North's bid out of > > turn. Now East may > > elect to call (or not). So, the possibilities are: > > > > 1. West elects not to call. The auction reverts to > > North, whose bid > > is in turn. South must pass once [Law 30A] and Law > > 72B1 may apply. > > Yes, if 1. we have no problems. > > > 2. West elects to call. North has bid out of turn. > > Now East may elect to call. > > If 2. I don't understand why North has bid out of > turn. > I think that this situatuion must be subject of new > law. What do You think? > > > Regards > > Dimitr Do we all agree? I didn't follow this thread, but the problem seems normal enough to need a common solution, which I agree with Dimitr, is not an obvious one. Yes if West does not accept the POOT L30 applies and North has opened the auction. But if West does accept the POOT from South we have a problem. I am not convinced that North call has to be treated as suggested, nor do I have a good other solution. Dimitr seems right: this problem is not covered by the laws. Let us assume N to be dealer and South starts with a POOT after which North opens 1C, conventional. West accepts the pass and bids 1S. If we now offer East the possibility to accept the 1C bid and he doesn't accept it this 1C-bid has become insufficient (could have been the reason for West to accept the pass!!) and we have to apply L27. I am not sure that to be the right approach, which explains my hesitation. It might be better to let North take back his 1D-bid in case West accepts the POOT. But the solution is not clear. A few opinions please? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 18:14:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f958EOo13427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:14:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f958EIH13423 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:14:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-56.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.56]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9589DB27587 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:09:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBC979F.83633B32@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 19:08:47 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011003132753.00a5c020@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011004165145.00a87970@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011005180022.00a7f140@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes Alain, I see what you are driving at. I am working upwards, saying I don't cross any boundaries. You work downwards and say the same thing. Since your system is clearly unallowed (or at least yellow), going down should keep is unallowed. I can't say where the line is crossed either. And I know that this is a problem with my reasoning. The only answer I have is that the problem never arises. The system you are now describing (0-5 only in third hand) is somewhere on the border, but it is a silly system - no-one would actually play this. I have discovered through my experiments that 4 HCP is too much to open with (in 3rd pos). So no, I don't know where the border is - but I do know that we should be looking for it in some constructive manner, not by simply stating that I cannot psyche again, ever, with any partner. Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > AG : this means that, if I restrict the phony 1C opening to 3rd seat, do > not use it systematically (say I do it only with 2+ clubs) and "show" the > psyche by dropping partner's next bid (which isn't conventional, just plain > bridge logic), I'm back in allowed convention territory (unless R18 is in > use). Partner won't indeed bid 3NT, because he's a passed hand. Not even > 2NT, since our 1NT response is 8-11. > Hmm ... I'll have to speak with Gilles. Oops, agreement ... > > Best regards, > > Alain. -- 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 Oct 5 18:23:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f958N4d13439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:23:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 f958MwH13435 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:22:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-124-13.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.124.13] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15pQB8-000I5A-00; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:17:54 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "bridge-laws" References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:19:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > >In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have > > > >noticed that the Laws treat deceptive plays in the > > > >same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the > > > >opinions of some regarding psychic calls were > > > >applied to falsecarding and other deceptive plays, > > > >it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. > > > > > +=+ Oh, come on Marv..... have you not taken a > > look at the Code of Practice? This question had > > recognition and was addressed. > > False carding with no prior announcement > > must be 'spontaneous', not 'habitual or systemic'. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > The CoP is not Law, and anyway is not in force > over here. > +=+ You make a parochial announcement on a world stage? Herman plays in Europe where the CoP has been adopted; your thinking and commentary should be adjusted to an international level.+=+ > > Anyway, that's baloney. Need I list all of the > "mandatory" falsecards (one word over here), > habitual and systemic, that must be in a > good player's repertoire? > > Playing falsecards (including false count), making > false bids, it's all the same. Neither can be > protected by a concealed partnership understanding, > implicit or explicit (L73E), but partnership > experience does not give protection *per se*. > +=+ As a broad principle, an understanding that may or may not operate in an opponent's, but does in your, partnership, is a special understanding. +=+ > *The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge*: "Best results > are obtained by defenders who keep up with the > game and at a given time are conscious whether a > false signal could mislead partner. Very often it can > be recognized that partner will not be misled. In > such cases, defenders should vary their signals > between true and falsecards rather than try to > outsmart the declarer." > +=+ I am amused that you react aggressively to mention of the CoP, but then go on to refer without qualification to a (distinguished) publication of a lesser status. Not that I have any criticism of the words you quote; they recommend that habit and system be avoided by varying between true and false, they make reference to misleading partner, which implies absence of understanding. "Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings *and expectations* of card plays by defenders, *intermittent* false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards." [CoP] > > Habitually, but not systemically. > +=+ "Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated" [CoP] "A partnership understanding exists when the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the partner of a psycher to take his awareness of psychic possibilities into account, whether he does so or not." [WBFLC minute] From what I have read here the HDW 1S is beyond doubt a matter of partnership understanding with any partner who has experienced it several times (and in my view once is enough if the latter reads blml). ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 5 18:59:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f958wOH13458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:58:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f958wGH13454 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:58:17 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f958rDp10768 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:53:13 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 98 4.10.2222 ( A ) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Probst wrote: > I find this one very tough Robin. IMO an agreement is one where the > continuation of the auction is something which the partnership are aware > of. In both the case of the H1H, and the Probst 1NT, the partner > excludes from his set of LA's those calls which could be deemed to cater > for the known propensity for the call. Knowledge of partner's bidding habits is a disclosure issue - not a UI one. If partner pre-empts and you know his pre-empts are "wide-ranging" you may well alert but you don't have to restrict your choices (you can even make an illogical jump straight to 6 after a 3 minute hesitation). With psyches you need to be a bit more careful as if you take "an unusual action" you may establish a red psyche. But that's almost the opposite of the "avoid LA" principle. If you reckon 20% of your peers might choose a particular call it can hardly be "unusual". There's no official guidance (that I know of) but I think 1 in 12 is "about right". Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 00:15:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f95EEGs06081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 00:14:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f95EE8H06077 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 00:14:09 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f95E95v01480 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:09:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:09 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance 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: <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> > From what I have read here the HDW 1S is > beyond doubt a matter of partnership understanding To which one might say "so what". Herman already believes it is a partnership understanding - that still doesn't make it an agreement. However, if Herman starts playing Drury (with the protection that affords) I would feel justified in classifying it as a systemic agreement. > with any partner who has experienced it several > times (and in my view once is enough if the latter > reads blml). Any BLML regular who sits down opposite Herman and on their first hand hears P-P-1H is *already* subject to disclosure requirements. Nothing need be done if opponents also read BLML but if they don't it is likely alertable (in EBU) under the "may have an unexpected meaning" catch-all. If you don't alert then you should tell opponents after the hand and the TD can decide whether an MI ruling is needed. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 01:36:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f95FYPg06111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:34:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f95FYJH06107 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:34:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f95FRGH27443; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:27:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:27:55 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" , Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >(and in my view once is enough if the latter >reads blml). I may have knowledge in my brain, from reading this list, of the psyching tendencies of HdW or other players who post here. That doesn't mean that information is accessible to me. Here I think we have to rely on the integrity of players. If I'm playing with Herman, and this situation comes up, and you ask me if I knew he might do this, and I say "no", and you say "but you read on blml that he might", and I say "oh, yeah, I remember now, but I'd forgotten," are you going to (explicitly or implicitly) call me a liar? I hope not. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO73RnL2UW3au93vOEQKQdgCgl2tICwHfQnAxmsYq3qmWBzfhshEAnj8w DTecW1+gzSaCxjY0gsUIBzgd =l3xU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 01:43:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f95FhNx06128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:43:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f95FhHH06124 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:43:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f95FbFH11273 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:37:15 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:30:28 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Any BLML regular who sits down opposite Herman and on their first hand >hears P-P-1H is *already* subject to disclosure requirements. Assuming he remembers at the table what he's read here. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO73T7L2UW3au93vOEQKA0QCgv/braGJeZXIuTWAqQJknZ11rS0wAoJJG bcBF1otid69NJ4nAOMUattGF =BOQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 03:46:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f95HixR29293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 03:44:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f95HipH29289 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 03:44:53 +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 RAA22526 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:39:56 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 18:34:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Probst wrote: > >> I find this one very tough Robin. IMO an agreement is one where the >> continuation of the auction is something which the partnership are aware >> of. In both the case of the H1H, and the Probst 1NT, the partner >> excludes from his set of LA's those calls which could be deemed to cater >> for the known propensity for the call. > >Knowledge of partner's bidding habits is a disclosure issue - not a UI >one. If partner pre-empts and you know his pre-empts are "wide-ranging" >you may well alert but you don't have to restrict your choices (you can >even make an illogical jump straight to 6 after a 3 minute hesitation). Look sunshine. there we are trying to play teams (a game which doesn't even involve money) and you've opened a 1st seat game all 3D. I've got AKJ AQxx Qxx Axx, and you can hold anything from Kxxxxx and a bust through to what you actually hold x Kx AKxxxxx xxx. Can you think of a better call than 3D ? :)) >With psyches you need to be a bit more careful as if you take "an unusual >action" you may establish a red psyche. > >But that's almost the opposite of the "avoid LA" principle. If you reckon >20% of your peers might choose a particular call it can hardly be >"unusual". There's no official guidance (that I know of) but I think >1 in 12 is "about right". > >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 08:47:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f95MkKW06135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 08:46:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f95MkCH06126 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 08:46:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-41-99.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.41.99] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15pdeW-0006Dw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 23:41:08 +0100 Message-ID: <004701c14def$453c8080$63297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: unbegreiflich; was Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 23:42:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 3:09 PM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > In-Reply-To: <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> > > From what I have read here the HDW 1S is > > beyond doubt a matter of partnership understanding > > To which one might say "so what". Herman already believes it is a > partnership understanding - that still doesn't make it an agreement. > However, if Herman starts playing Drury (with the protection that affords) > I would feel justified in classifying it as a systemic agreement. > +=+ Dictionary. 'Understanding': a mutual arrangement or agreement; something agreed on; an informal or unspoken agreement. 'Agreement' : a mutual understanding; a position or result of agreeing. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 08:47:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f95MkN606136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 08:46:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f95MkFH06131 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 08:46:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-41-99.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.41.99] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15pdeU-0006Dw-00; Fri, 05 Oct 2001 23:41:07 +0100 Message-ID: <004601c14def$44391a40$63297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona><003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 23:40:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 4:27 PM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >(and in my view once is enough if the latter > >reads blml). > > I may have knowledge in my brain, from reading this list, of the > psyching tendencies of HdW or other players who post here. That > doesn't mean that information is accessible to me. Here I think we > have to rely on the integrity of players. If I'm playing with Herman, > and this situation comes up, and you ask me if I knew he might do > this, and I say "no", and you say "but you read on blml that he > might", and I say "oh, yeah, I remember now, but I'd forgotten," are > you going to (explicitly or implicitly) call me a liar? I hope not. > > +=+ But the first time he does it in your partnership you are reminded and from then on you know. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 19:17:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f969GkY29357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:16:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f969GaH29348 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:16:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.133]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f969BTT20283 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 11:11:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBD71AC.721AD59E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:39:08 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110040926.KAA12815@tempest.npl.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.1.20011004132619.00a05c80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 11:02 AM 10/4/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >Does the word "may" have no significance, then? > > Not to speak for Robin, but.... > I think it is significant, but I don't think it matters > to Herman's 1S. OK, thank you Grant, this is a step in the right direction. > > "habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit >*agreements*". > Herman "psyches" in a consistent way, with > a specific hand under specific circumstances. The Laws speak of "habitual". You talk of "consistent". What's the difference ? You agree that the "may" in the laws makes it so that "habitual" alone is not enough - there has to be something else. Please explain why "consistent" is more than "habitual" and why this would be enough to turn the "may" into "will". > If this isn't > a case where an implicit agreement has been created, how > could anything ever constitute an implicit agreement? Perhaps by partner or system catering for it ? > Herman's > 1S opener is not a psyche--it is a deliberate and consistent > choice as to how to open a [rare] hand type. Yes, so ? Isn't that the "habitual" of the Laws ? What have you added that the Laws do not already cater for ? > I am not claiming that one psyche creates an implicit > agreement. But anyone who consistently psyches by making > the same bid under the same circumstances is no longer > psyching. > That is a once-in-a-lifetime rule ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 6 19:17:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f969Gkv29356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:16:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f969GbH29349 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 19:16:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.133]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f969BWT20297 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 11:11:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBD726C.4821FB8@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:42:20 +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: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110031217.NAA05260@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3BBB2431.3A471681@village.uunet.be> <001901c14cfd$d71ca4a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > I don't believe you've crossed any lines either, Herman. > > In the discussion of psychs, no one seems to have noticed that the Laws > treat deceptive plays in the same way as deceptive calls (L40, L75). If the > opinions of some regarding psychic calls were applied to falsecarding and > other deceptive plays, it would be quickly realized how incorrect they are. > Sorry Marv, for your try of support, but this argument does not hold. We are not discussing MI here, but illegal systems. There is no such regulation (well not of this sort) regarding carding. Everyone on this list agrees that I am allowed to use the H1H when yellow systems are permitted ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 7 06:13:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f96KBDC16690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 06:11:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f96KB7H16686 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 06:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-124-22-dial-as4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.124.22]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f96K60413152 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 12:06:00 -0800 (AKDT) Message-ID: <3BBF6507.520BD65F@ptialaska.net> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 12:09:43 -0800 From: Michael Schmahl Organization: poor X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: blml Subject: [BLML] Multiple irregularities in general (was: L30) References: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is it an accepted principle that multiple irregularities must be dealt with sequentially? It is possible, although leading to strange results in the current case, that it is in general correct to handle irregularities recursively. I think that there should be a meta-law providing what to do when there has been more than one irregularity. That would simplify the discussion, both of this case, and of the multiple revoke case. -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 7 07:54:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f96Lru120818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 07:53:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f96LroH20799 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 07:53:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f96LlgH18736; Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:47:43 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3BBF6507.520BD65F@ptialaska.net> References: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com> <3BBF6507.520BD65F@ptialaska.net> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 17:46:22 -0400 To: Michael Schmahl From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Multiple irregularities in general (was: L30) Cc: blml Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:09 PM -0800 10/6/01, Michael Schmahl wrote: >I think that there should be a meta-law >providing what to do when there has been more than one irregularity. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't, and we have to deal with multiple irregularities without it. So now what? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO798Q72UW3au93vOEQITyQCg16Vjx7mb9NK51JMinB5wBgBT7JsAoIFJ mkiZUu06Sx2LoGNCAJWa2cZE =dwMq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 7 18:08:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9787RE17543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:07:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9787KH17539 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:07:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-245.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.245]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9782CB14388 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 10:02:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBED321.6D8A8834@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:47:14 +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: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> <004601c14def$44391a40$63297bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > From: Ed Reppert > > > > >(and in my view once is enough if the latter > > >reads blml). > > > > I may have knowledge in my brain, from reading this list, of the > > psyching tendencies of HdW or other players who post here. That > > doesn't mean that information is accessible to me. Here I think we > > have to rely on the integrity of players. If I'm playing with > Herman, > > and this situation comes up, and you ask me if I knew he might do > > this, and I say "no", and you say "but you read on blml that he > > might", and I say "oh, yeah, I remember now, but I'd forgotten," > are > > you going to (explicitly or implicitly) call me a liar? I hope > not. > > > > > +=+ But the first time he does it in > your partnership you are reminded > and from then on you know. ~ G ~ +=+ > I don't think this matters. Ed "might have known", and so the opponents are entitled to know as well. I would tell them myself, and I won't stand in the way of a TD who genuinely tries to rule MI. I've always said that I am more severe than most when it comes to MI issues about psyches. But this thread was not about MI, but about system regulations. I'm of the firm opinion that there is a gap in between the two where psyches are allowed to thrive. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 7 18:08:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9787JL17537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:07:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9787DH17532 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:07:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-245.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.245]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f97824B14384 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 10:02:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBED25E.4266FB29@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:43:58 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: unbegreiflich; was Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <004701c14def$453c8080$63297bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ > Dictionary. > > 'Understanding': a mutual arrangement or agreement; > something agreed on; an informal > or unspoken agreement. > 'Agreement' : a mutual understanding; a position or > result of agreeing. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > Now Grattan, as everyone well knows, some words have similar meanings. But not exactly the same meaning. When they are then used side-by-side, in legal texts, it is obvious (to me) that the distinction between the two needs to be made clearer. By using understanding in one place, and agreement in another, the WBF have indicated that the two are similar, but not the same ! Merriam-Webster : ¹un.der.stand.ing n (bef. 12c) [1: a mental grasp: comprehension 2 a: the power of comprehending; esp: the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars b: the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts and categories] [3 a: friendly or harmonious relationship b: an agreement of opinion or feeling: adjustment of differences] c: a mutual agreement not formally entered into but in some degree binding on each side [4: explanation, interpretation 5: sympathy ] agree.ment n (15c) [1 a: the act or fact of agreeing b: harmony of opinion, action, or character: concord ] 2 a: an arrangement as to a course of action [b: compact, treaty 3 a: a contract duly executed and legally binding b: the language or instrument embodying such a contract ] I think this means that understanding is less binding than agreement. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 7 18:08:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9787Er17533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:07:14 +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 f97877H17527 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:07:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-245.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.245]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9781tB14371 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 10:01:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BBECF74.6F830B1A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 11:31:32 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > Habitually, but not systemically. > > > +=+ "Habit is to be identified when an occurrence > is so frequent that it may be anticipated" [CoP] > "A partnership understanding exists when > the frequency of occurrence is sufficient for the > partner of a psycher to take his awareness of > psychic possibilities into account, whether he > does so or not." [WBFLC minute] > From what I have read here the HDW 1S is > beyond doubt a matter of partnership understanding > with any partner who has experienced it several > times (and in my view once is enough if the latter > reads blml). ~ G ~ +=+ > Without questioning the "anticipated" and "frequency" in your quotes (I still might), I will accept that this is "partnership understanding". Please Grattan - and do tell us your personal opinion if no WBF opinion exists - does that equate or not to partnership agreement and system regulations being in force ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 7 18:13:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f978DlT17584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f978DfH17580 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 18:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-69-242.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.69.242] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15q8zA-000AB2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 09:08:33 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c14f07$b50bcf60$f2457bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200110031217.NAA05260@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3BBB2431.3A471681@village.uunet.be> <001901c14cfd$d71ca4a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:07:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 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: Thursday, October 04, 2001 6:55 PM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > > I admit that I may go further with psyches > > than some (do I ?) but I don't believe I have > > crossed any lines. If my psyches are banned > > by system regulations, then so are many > > more that no-one ever gives a second look to. > > > I don't believe you've crossed any lines either, > Herman. > +=+ If there is a given hand type on which HDW always opens 1S, he is required to list this amongst the meanings of 1S on his CC; he should qualify the statement with such as '3rd in hand nv' if this is the case. Similarly with 1H, or any other opener. Knowing Herman to be an honest player, I am sure he does so. He is well aware that when with a given hand type he always acts in a specified way, such action is no longer 'psychic' but part of his system and to be announced as such. The requirement applies as soon as his partner is aware of Herman's practice. It is then a matter of partnership understanding or agreement, the two being effectively synonymous. The partner would be aware of it if conscious that it had happened several times in the partnership; the partner would be aware of it after it had happened once in the partnership if he had read the correspondence on the subject on blml; he would be aware of it if they had discussed it. (It should be noted that 'habitual violations within a partnership' is not the only way in which an implicit agreement can come about; the law wishes it to be clear this is one of them but an implicit agreement may be adjudged to have arisen from other circumstances involving mutually shared knowledge). Such is my strongly held view of the meaning of Laws 40A and 40E, noting in particular the 40E stipulation that partners "are to list their conventions and other agreements" on the CC if one is prescribed. ~ G ~ +=+ [Dictionary definitions, repeated for convenience: "Understanding" = a mutual arrangement or agreement; something agreed on; an informal or unspoken agreement. "Agreement" = a mutual understanding; a position or result of agreeing. ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 7 22:45:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f97Cj5o18945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:45:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f97CixH18941 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:45:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-1 ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA18571 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 14:34:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <200110071234.OAA18571@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 14:39:48 +0200 To: BLML From: Petrus Schuster OSB Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 X-Mailer: Opera 5.12 build 932 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 05.10.2001 09:47:34, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >Yes if West does not accept the POOT L30 applies and North has opened the >auction. > >But if West does accept the POOT from South we have a problem. I am not >convinced that North call has to be treated as suggested, nor do I have a >good other solution. Dimitr seems right: this problem is not covered by the >laws. > >Let us assume N to be dealer and South starts with a POOT after which North >opens 1C, conventional. West accepts the pass and bids 1S. If we now offer >East the possibility to accept the 1C bid and he doesn't accept it this >1C-bid has become insufficient (could have been the reason for West to >accept the pass!!) and we have to apply L27. I am not sure that to be the >right approach, which explains my hesitation. > >It might be better to let North take back his 1D-bid in case West accepts >the POOT. But the solution is not clear. A few opinions please? > IMO if W accepts S's POOT, 1C is a BOOT and we are to apply L31A. (As N has to chose his call after W's 1S, E may not accept 1C unless N repeats it.) We still have to discuss whether E may accept N's 1C *before* W has exercised his option to accept S's pass (this would mean treating N's 1C as a BOOT until W has explicitely not accepted S's pass) or only in the rare case *after* W has accepted S's pass and before he has chosen a call. Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 06:43:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f97KfXj13906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f97KfKH13890 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-246.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.246] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15qKeh-000Lfn-00; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:36:11 +0100 Message-ID: <006f01c14f70$2799b200$063b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> <3BBECF74.6F830B1A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 20:35:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > > > Without questioning the "anticipated" and "frequency" in > your quotes (I still might), I will accept that this is > "partnership understanding". > +=+ The quotes are taken from official WBF documents, endorsed in the case of the CoP by the EBL, and promulgated to all NBOs.+=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 8 06:43:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f97KfYY13907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f97KfLH13893 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-246.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.246] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15qKef-000Lfn-00; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:36:10 +0100 Message-ID: <006e01c14f70$267c5b20$063b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <004701c14def$453c8080$63297bd5@dodona> <3BBED25E.4266FB29@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: unbegreiflich; was Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 20:31:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:43 AM Subject: Re: unbegreiflich; was Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > > Now Grattan, as everyone well knows, some > words have similar meanings. But not exactly > the same meaning. When they are then used > side-by-side, in legal texts, it is obvious (to me) > that the distinction between the two needs to > be made clearer. > +=+ Or the lack of any distinction; with this I agree and indeed one of the major proposals I have tabled for the Laws Drafting Sub-committee removes 'agreement' from the laws and refers only to 'partnership understandings' and 'special partnership understandings' (with definitions), substituting, as may be thought appropriate, one or other of these where 'agreement' might otherwise be written. +=+ > > By using understanding in one place, and > agreement in another, the WBF have indicated > that the two are similar, but not the same ! > +=+ A step too far to infer that they are surely not the same, although the drafting is confusing I agree. There is no doubt in my mind that 'other agreements' in 40E includes the 'partnership understandings' in 40A. I would say that all partnership understandings are matters of agreement between partners and that all agreements to which the laws refer are matters of partnership understanding. Nowhere in the laws is there any definition that makes a distinction between the two so as to invalidate either of these assertions and the OED definitions I quoted give them cogency. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 06:43:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f97KfZ113908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f97KfOH13899 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-246.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.246] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15qKej-000Lfn-00; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:36:13 +0100 Message-ID: <007001c14f70$28c7d1c0$063b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael Schmahl" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "blml" References: <20011002165252.48490.qmail@web12905.mail.yahoo.com><3BBF6507.520BD65F@ptialaska.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Multiple irregularities in general (was: L30) Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:09:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Michael Schmahl Cc: blml Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Multiple irregularities in general (was: L30) > > At 12:09 PM -0800 10/6/01, Michael Schmahl > > wrote: > >I think that there should be a meta-law > >providing what to do when there has been more > >than one irregularity. > > Perhaps there should be, but there isn't, and > we have to deal with multiple irregularities > without it. So now what? > Regards, Ed > +=+ Well, let's see what we can make of it. I have been meditating on the law and its logic and this is the direction my thoughts have taken. If I have understood the case in point, South passes out of rotation before any other player has called; with no attention drawn to this and no call by West after the pass, North (dealer) bids. Attention is now drawn to South's infraction and the TD is summoned. So what now? Q.1. Have EW lost their rights? A. I can see nothing to suggest that E-W have done anything to lose their rights. Q.2. So? A. The Director must go back to South's Pass and offer West his option under Law 29A. West can accept the call by making a call himself - a Pass or a Bid. Q.3. If he passes is North stuck with his One Spade opener? A. Well, if West were to bid it is evident that North is free to take whatever action he chooses; the right to penalize the infraction is forfeited just as it is when West passes. In this scenario the 1S opener by North is seen to be cancelled. Q.4. So? A. Frankly, I do not see how it could be suggested that the basis on which the Director will rule North's call to be cancelled or not will be whether in accepting South's Pass, West chooses to pass or to bid. Either North's call has been cancelled like South's Pass, to rectify the infraction, or it has not, and because of the exigencies when West bids it appears to me that it is cancelled. Q.5. OK then. If the North bid is cancelled and not repeated, does the forfeiture of the right to penalize mean that information from North's 1S bid is authorized to all? A. No. Restrictions laid down in Law 16C are not penalties. For good measure in Law 30A the Director has his attention drawn to Law 72B1. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 06:43:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f97KfUN13905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f97KfHH13885 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:41:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-74-246.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.74.246] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15qKed-000Lfn-00; Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:36:07 +0100 Message-ID: <006d01c14f70$252ca9a0$063b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> <3BBECF74.6F830B1A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 20:27:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Without questioning the "anticipated" and > "frequency" in your quotes (I still might), I > will accept that this is "partnership > understanding". > > Please Grattan - and do tell us your personal > opinion if no WBF opinion exists - does that > equate or not to partnership agreement and > system regulations being in force ? > +=+ I think my personal opinions are apparent from other contributions to this thread. It was my drafting,with minimal amendment, that produced the official WBF recommendation (adopted by the EBL) constituting a regulation where it is adopted: "Psychic Calls Definition of Psychic Call: "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length". A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a partnership understanding. No penalty or score adjustment may be awarded against such lawful action. A partnership understanding exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; alternatively it may exist because it is the implicit consequence of one of a number of circumstances. To deem that such an implicit understanding exists it must be determined that the partner of the player who psyches has a heightened awareness that in the given situation the call may be psychic. This will be the case only if in the opinion of the committee one of the following circumstances is established: (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the partnership on several occasions in the past, and not so long ago that the memory of the actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated; or (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has occurred in the partnership and it is considered the memory is so fresh that it cannot have faded from mind; or (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred in the partnership with such frequency, and sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to occur; or (d) the members of the partnership are mutually aware of some significant external matter that may help recognition of the psychic call. ................ omissis .............. Players who are found to have any explicit agreement concerning psychic calls, or an implicit agreement concerning a particular kind of psychic call, are to be reminded that they have a partnership agreement that is subject to the regulations established under the authority of Law 40D." {WBF CoP} ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 07:24:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f97LOUj19492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:24:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f97LONH19474 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:24:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-39.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.39]) by lycee.ns.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 50DC29D77 for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:19:15 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:12:47 +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 > Kooijman, A. writes: > Let us assume N to be dealer and South starts with a POOT after which North > opens 1C, conventional. West accepts the pass and bids 1S. No, I think a point has been missed here, which was touched on earlier in this thread. After the OPOOT, West may "elect to call" (L29A) - this not the same as "may call". ISTM that the TD should be careful to offer West his right to "elect to call" (i.e. accept the OPOOT), while making it clear that West shouldn't call yet. Once the OPOOT has been accepted, it as though South had passed in turn as dealer. North's 1C now becomes a BOOT and is dealt with according to L31A, as previously discussed. OTOH, if West "elects to call" and bids 1S without waiting for the TD to deal with the BOOT, then L28B applies. West forfeits the right to penalise the 1C BOOT which is cancelled. There is no further penalty, but L16C2 may apply It is more interesting if West does not accept the OPOOT. Adam Beneschan asserts that this action also cancels the bid by North. He says: > The auction reverts to North, and South must pass once. > North is *not* required to make his original bid; and > North may well bid something else knowing that South > is required to pass. He may well wish to, but North's bid was made *after* the OPOOT - if it had been simultaneous the TD would have applied L33. When West refuses to accept the OPOOT it becomes North's turn to call and he has already bid. Adam suggests he can now change his bid, but I see no law which permits this. ISTM that North's bid should stand (unless he wants to make use of L25B) and now South must pass once (L30A). Ed Reppert says: > The current law seems adequate to me. I agree. 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 Oct 8 18:33:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f988WXX16866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:32:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp011.mail.yahoo.com (smtp011.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.31]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f988WSH16862 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:32:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from unknown (HELO pournaras) (212.205.99.231) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 08:27:20 -0000 X-Apparently-From: Message-ID: <000a01c14fd3$27e07600$1d56a8c0@esat.gr> Reply-To: "Takis Pournaras" From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws ML" Subject: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:28:04 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C14FEC.4BBDF160" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C14FEC.4BBDF160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2nd Division Tournament (3 in total) Board Nr 13 (N/All) QT6 A852 8 AKQ53 A953 K T K9764 K76 T95432 98762 4 J8742 QJ3 AQJ JT Contract: 4S by South Declarer gets 7 tricks, last 5 crd ending, dummy to play: - A852 - x A9 - Immaterial K7 9 J87 - AQ - Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, discards the Queen of Diamonds and = spreads his hand saying: "I will give two trumps to West". West calls the director saying that he discards his diamonds and if = declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose 3 tricks. Is the play of a trump irrational? ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C14FEC.4BBDF160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
2nd Division Tournament (3 in = total)
 
Board Nr 13 (N/All)
 
     =20 QT6
     =20 A852
     =20 8
     =20 AKQ53
 
A953      =20 K
T         =20 K9764
K76        = T95432
98762     =20 4
 
     =20 J8742
     =20 QJ3
     =20 AQJ
     =20 JT
 
Contract: 4S by South
 
Declarer gets 7 tricks, last 5 crd = ending, dummy to=20 play:
 
     =20 -
     =20 A852
     =20 -
     =20 x
 
A9
-         =20 Immaterial
K7
9
 
     =20 J87
     =20 -
     =20 AQ
     =20 -
 
Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, = discards the=20 Queen of Diamonds and spreads his hand saying: "I will give two = trumps to=20 West".
 
West calls the director saying that he = discards his=20 diamonds and if declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose = 3=20 tricks.
 
Is the play of a trump=20 irrational?
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C14FEC.4BBDF160-- _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 19:08:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9897j625640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:07:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alisier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9897WH25596 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:07:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from andira.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.152) by alisier.wanadoo.fr; 8 Oct 2001 11:02:17 +0200 Received: from olivier (193.249.227.172) by andira.wanadoo.fr; 8 Oct 2001 11:01:43 +0200 Message-ID: <00b201c14fd7$b5b9cc20$ace3f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Takis Pournaras" , "Bridge Laws ML" References: <000a01c14fd3$27e07600$1d56a8c0@esat.gr> Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:00:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00AF_01C14FE8.7869EF60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01C14FE8.7869EF60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, for me. Even if he said nothing, it will be irrationnal. Here, he said "two trumps for west", so he knows west has two trumps, so = he plays his master cards first. It's what he means. No problem in this = case. Completely irrationnal ! Olivier. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Takis Pournaras=20 To: Bridge Laws ML=20 Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:28 AM Subject: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? =20 2nd Division Tournament (3 in total) =20 Board Nr 13 (N/All) =20 QT6 A852 8 AKQ53 =20 A953 K T K9764 K76 T95432 98762 4 =20 J8742 QJ3 AQJ JT =20 Contract: 4S by South =20 Declarer gets 7 tricks, last 5 crd ending, dummy to play: =20 - A852 - x =20 A9 - Immaterial K7 9 =20 J87 - AQ - =20 Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, discards the Queen of Diamonds and = spreads his hand saying: "I will give two trumps to West". =20 West calls the director saying that he discards his diamonds and if = declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose 3 tricks. =20 Is the play of a trump irrational? ------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01C14FE8.7869EF60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, for me.
Even if he said nothing, it will be=20 irrationnal.
Here, he said "two trumps for west", so = he knows=20 west has two trumps, so he plays his master cards first. It's what he = means. No=20 problem in this case. Completely irrationnal !
Olivier.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Takis = Pournaras=20
To: Bridge Laws ML
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 = 10:28=20 AM
Subject: [BLML] Who's to ... = claim?

 
2nd Division Tournament (3 in = total)
 
Board Nr 13 (N/All)
 
     =20 QT6
     =20 A852
     =20 8
     =20 AKQ53
 
A953      =20 K
T         =20 K9764
K76        = T95432
98762     =20 4
 
     =20 J8742
     =20 QJ3
     =20 AQJ
     =20 JT
 
Contract: 4S by South
 
Declarer gets 7 tricks, last 5 crd = ending, dummy=20 to play:
 
     =20 -
     =20 A852
     =20 -
     =20 x
 
A9
-         =20 Immaterial
K7
9
 
     =20 J87
     =20 -
     =20 AQ
     =20 -
 
Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, = discards the=20 Queen of Diamonds and spreads his hand saying: "I will give two = trumps to=20 West".
 
West calls the director saying that = he discards=20 his diamonds and if declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will = loose 3=20 tricks.
 
Is the play of a trump=20 irrational?
------=_NextPart_000_00AF_01C14FE8.7869EF60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 8 19:42:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f989fRU28615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:41:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f989fLH28610 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:41:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4PYZR1YQ>; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:36:56 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5F9@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:36:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis Pournaras wrote: >2nd Division Tournament (3 in total) > >Board Nr 13 (N/All) > > QT6 > A852 > 8 > AKQ53 > >A953 K >T K9764 >K76 T95432 >98762 4 > > J8742 > QJ3 > AQJ > JT > >Contract: 4S by South > >Declarer gets 7 tricks, last 5 crd ending, dummy to play: > > - > A852 > - > x > >A9 >- Immaterial >K7 >9 > > J87 > - > AQ > - > >Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, discards the Queen of Diamonds >and spreads his hand saying: "I will give two trumps to West". > >West calls the director saying that he discards his diamonds and >if declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose 3 tricks. > >Is the play of a trump irrational? I think is is. Declarer knows that West has two master trumps and he has no losers in the side suits. The obvious line of play is to cash the winners in the side suits, letting West score his trumps whenever he pleases. Declarer did not say that he would play trumps himself, he only said that he would lose two trumps to West. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 20:34:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98AXiZ29378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:33:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98AXcH29374 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:33:39 +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 f98ASS820916; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:28:29 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f98ASSs29830; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:28:28 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:28:28 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 LAA01077; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:28:27 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA22596; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:28:27 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:28:27 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110081028.LAA22596@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, cyaxares@lineone.net Subject: Re: unbegreiflich; was Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > +=+ > Dictionary. > > 'Understanding': a mutual arrangement or agreement; > something agreed on; an informal > or unspoken agreement. > 'Agreement' : a mutual understanding; a position or > result of agreeing. > > > ~ G ~ +=+ The GCoC Appendix 4 (reproduced below) uses "understanding" and "agreement" to distinuish between different approach to psyching/fielding. So there would seem to be different meanings attached to these words. Specifically, there are partnership understandings that are not conventions [which are partnership agreements]. The laws use the words (parnership) experience, understanding, agreement. I would like the next laws to make it clear which of these are synonyms, and for those that are different: how are they defined ? how are they created (within a partnership) ? are they to be disclosed ? are they subject to SO regulation ? Robin WBF: General Conditions of Contest: Appendix 4 Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, provided that any partnership understandings or agreements are disclosed. It would be inconsistent therefore if the WBF forbade psychics in its own tournaments. Some partnerships of reasonably long standing develop understandings that psychic bids in certain situations will be of a certain type. These are developed partnership understandings and not conventions, and should be explained on the Convention Card and on the Supplementary Sheets. In other words the psychics should be made randomly but any understandings about them should be revealed. Where partnerships have agreements that psychic bids are expected or are likely in specific situations or where the psychics are protected by System then a convention has developed. Such psychic understandings are classified as Brown Sticker Conventions and are therefore forbidden in certain events. The type of agreement referred to, for example, is where, third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player is expected to open the bidding on anything at all. -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 8 22:51:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98Coug08133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:50:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98ConH08119 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:50:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP13.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.13]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA29473 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:45:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Law25B? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:46:27 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BKMLrs, Last weekend, in a regional tournament, this auction occurred: N E S W 1NT P 4D P 4S... oh sh.. TD North called the TD saying he made a mistake. When asked by the TD, he clearly said 4S was not an inadvertent bid, using bidding box, but a silly mistake. He never said "I would have bid 4H as required" or made other try to change his call. What is the correct ruling ? 1) Deem that N made or want to make a change of call (to 4H) and apply Law 25B (no inadvertent call). 2) As N has not really made an other call, simply rule that "I made a mistake" is UI to S and tell him he must use 4S as it is (a super accept on their CC). 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 Mon Oct 8 23:41:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98DfXq18465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:41:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98DfSH18461 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:41:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP13.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.13]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00346 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:36:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:37:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): 2. Designates Suit but Not Rank If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. Norht Q 4 3 2 K 8 3 K 5 2 J 9 5 2 East West K 10 5 6 Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 South A J 9 8 7 A 5 2 J 8 4 K 8 Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. Your ruling please. 1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. 2) Declarer's intention was to play CJ (incontrovertible). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 00:27:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98EQku21224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:26:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98EQdH21220 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:26:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (eiuts19.eiu.edu [139.67.16.19]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id f98EL1u29292 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:21:01 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011008092352.007e3210@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 09:23:52 -0500 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:37 AM 10/8/2001 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, >B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the >card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply >(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): [big snip] >Your ruling please. >2) Declarer's intention was to play CJ (incontrovertible). If the TD decides that declarer's intent was incontrovertible, then he allows declarer to play the CJ. If he decides it wasn't, he plays a low club. >Laval Du Breuil Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 00:50:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98EoJl21244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:50:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98EoCH21240 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:50:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15qbeQ-0007zq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:45:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 15:43:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B 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 Laval Dubreuil writes >Hi BLMLrs, > > > >B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the >card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply >(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): > >2. Designates Suit but Not Rank >If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to >have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. > > Norht > Q 4 3 2 > K 8 3 > K 5 2 > J 9 5 2 > East West > K 10 5 6 > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > South > A J 9 8 7 > A 5 2 > J 8 4 > K 8 > >Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, >dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and >finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer >takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. >Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and >tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing >this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. > >Your ruling please. > >1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the > lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. > >2) Declarer's intention was to play CJ (incontrovertible). These sort of judgement rulings really require the TD to be there, so I might rule differently at the table, dependent on what was said. But it sounds to me like someone casually calling club meaning the top one, so I would probably rule #2. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 01:09:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98F9Pd21261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:09:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m04.mx.aol.com (imo-m04.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98F9KH21257 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:09:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id k.f8.10b01d46 (26120); Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:03:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:03:49 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f8.10b01d46.28f31a55_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_f8.10b01d46.28f31a55_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re Sterling ruling. The most concise, complete, and non-ruling I've seen in a long time. He asked what you would do, didn't he? We all presume that he can read the Law he quoted. At least Stevenson gives an opinion. Kojak --part1_f8.10b01d46.28f31a55_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re Sterling ruling.  The most concise, complete, and non-ruling I've seen in a long time. He asked what you would do, didn't he? We all presume that he can read the Law he quoted.  At least Stevenson gives an opinion.
Kojak --part1_f8.10b01d46.28f31a55_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 01:19:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98FJPe21278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:19:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow035o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98FJHH21274 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:19:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.228.158]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:11:41 +0100 Message-ID: <003301c1500b$ef7a0c20$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Bridge Laws \(E-mail\)" References: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5F9@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:14:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I too agree South has 3 tricks defence 2 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:36 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? > Takis Pournaras wrote: > > >2nd Division Tournament (3 in total) > > > >Board Nr 13 (N/All) > > > > QT6 > > A852 > > 8 > > AKQ53 > > > >A953 K > >T K9764 > >K76 T95432 > >98762 4 > > > > J8742 > > QJ3 > > AQJ > > JT > > > >Contract: 4S by South > > > >Declarer gets 7 tricks, last 5 crd ending, dummy to play: > > > > - > > A852 > > - > > x > > > >A9 > >- Immaterial > >K7 > >9 > > > > J87 > > - > > AQ > > - > > > >Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, discards the Queen of Diamonds > >and spreads his hand saying: "I will give two trumps to West". > > > >West calls the director saying that he discards his diamonds and > >if declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose 3 tricks. > > > >Is the play of a trump irrational? > > I think is is. Declarer knows that West has two master trumps and > he has no losers in the side suits. The obvious line of play is to > cash the winners in the side suits, letting West score his trumps > whenever he pleases. Declarer did not say that he would play > trumps himself, he only said that he would lose two trumps to > West. > > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 03:44:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98Hi6w21375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:44:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98Hi1H21370 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:44:01 +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 f98HcSu09159 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:38:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011008123142.00a203f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 12:39:25 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:03 AM 10/8/01 -0400, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >Re Sterling ruling. The most concise, complete, and non-ruling I've seen >in a long time. He asked what you would do, didn't he? We all presume that >he can read the Law he quoted. At least Stevenson gives an opinion. >Kojak Well, in his summary of the case he specifically said that the declarer's intention to play the CJ was incontrovertible. So, it seems to me, the case is closed right there. Now I confess that I had originally intended to add a final sentence saying something along the lines of "this is a judgement you had to make at the table", and I neglected to do so--apologies for that. 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 Tue Oct 9 03:55:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98Ht5T21387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:55:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.worldcom.ch (mail1.worldcom.ch [212.74.176.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98HswH21383 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:54:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (portmp008.worldcom.ch [212.74.135.8]) by mail.worldcom.ch (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA22450 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:49:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 19:50:11 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Yvan Calame Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011008092352.007e3210@eiu.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:23 08.10.01 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: > If the TD decides that declarer's intent was incontrovertible, then >he allows declarer to play the CJ. If he decides it wasn't, he plays >a low club. Ok, but not many players heard of law 45c4b (A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought), most didnt. I was dummy (vs. Belgium in an european teams championship Herman :) ), partner said club (meaning "cash"), I played small, she grimaced, said nothing, down went the game. (Same problem with 25b2b2, not many heard of it) Some laws should be publicized or cancelled. Yvan. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 03:56:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98HuNu21400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:56:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe12.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.116]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98HuHH21395 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 03:56:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:51:03 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.166.23] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:47:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2001 17:51:03.0871 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC8844F0:01C15021] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B | Laval Dubreuil writes | >Hi BLMLrs, | > | > | > | >B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call | >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the | >card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply | >(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): | > | >2. Designates Suit but Not Rank | >If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to | >have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. | > | > Norht | > Q 4 3 2 | > K 8 3 | > K 5 2 | > J 9 5 2 | > East West | > K 10 5 6 | > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 | > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 | > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 | > South | > A J 9 8 7 | > A 5 2 | > J 8 4 | > K 8 | > | >Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, | >dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and | >finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer | >takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. | >Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and | >tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing | >this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. | > | >Your ruling please. | > | >1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the | > lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. | > | >2) Declarer's intention was to play CJ (incontrovertible). | | These sort of judgement rulings really require the TD to be there, so | I might rule differently at the table, dependent on what was said. | | But it sounds to me like someone casually calling club meaning the top | one, so I would probably rule #2. | | -- | David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK I am in agreement with DWS that I am dissatisfied with the completeness of the facts. So far the only thing I am convinced of is that declarer did not deny he called for a 'club' and did not say anything until after the Club 7 became visible or during the minute it took the TD to arrive. There certainly is room for pause in that scenario and where there is room there lacks incontovertibility. I am thinking that the sole basis for ruling [2] is in the case where declarer fully satisfies the conditions set forth in L45C4b (if incontrovertibility of intention is satisfied, then to let stand a correction the player's action must satisfy L45C4b; which means that there is a limited duration of time to set things straight). imo this incontrovertible thing in L46 is an abomination. When you start worrying more about what can be done with the cards than what players do with them the game is not worth playing. Anyway, let's assume in this case [whether true or not and not suggesting that such an assumption should be made in rulling] the intention was incontrovertible. Then for the fact presented, declarer did not correct his designation without pause, the orignal designation must stand. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 05:41:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98JerA24227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 05:40:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98JekH24223 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 05:40:47 +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 MAA15110; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:35:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200110081935.MAA15110@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Oct 2001 09:37:06 EDT." Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 12:35:30 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call > In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the > card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply > (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): > > 2. Designates Suit but Not Rank > If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to > have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. > > Norht > Q 4 3 2 > K 8 3 > K 5 2 > J 9 5 2 > East West > K 10 5 6 > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > South > A J 9 8 7 > A 5 2 > J 8 4 > K 8 > > Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, > dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and > finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer > takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. > Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and > tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing > this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. > > Your ruling please. > > 1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the > lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. I'm a little lost. Wasn't the C2 already played at the first trick? If not, why not? Did declarer actually insert the 9 from dummy when looking at the 8 in his hand? And why aren't East and West sitting in the right seats? And how come "Norht" has 14 cards and West, who is sitting in East's chair, has only 12? I'd say everyone should get penalized for this one. Technically, I can't find a Law making it illegal to finesse the 9 from dummy when you're staring at the 8 in your own hand, but I really hate to make South feel left out. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 05:59:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98JxT424245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 05:59:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98JxBH24241 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 05:59:11 +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 f98JrYu12792 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:53:34 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011008144651.00a097f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 14:54:30 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> References: <3.0.6.32.20011008092352.007e3210@eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:50 PM 10/8/01 +0200, Yvan Calame wrote: >At 09:23 08.10.01 -0500, Grant Sterling wrote: > > If the TD decides that declarer's intent was incontrovertible, then > >he allows declarer to play the CJ. If he decides it wasn't, he plays > >a low club. > >Ok, but not many players heard of law 45c4b (A player may, without >penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause >for thought), most didnt. Not many people in the US have heard of that law, either, but it is very common, at the clubs and tournaments in my area, for people to attempt to correct inadvertant designations. I have never seen an opponent question such a change, but I'm sure the TD could clear it up if they did. >I was dummy (vs. Belgium in an european teams championship Herman :) ), >partner said club (meaning "cash"), I played small, she grimaced, >said nothing, down went the game. I think this case is clearly to be adjudicated under L46b not under L45c, FWIW. I have also seen people try to correct a designation in those situations, so in my area I can say that there are people who know they can correct these errors, although I'm sure they couldn't recite the law itself by any means. >(Same problem with 25b2b2, not many heard of it) Again, my experience is that almost everyone around here thinks they can correct their play of a card if it was inadvertant, but I don't know of _anyone_ who has ever tried to change a call that was not inadvertant at my table. Therefore, speaking only for my own area, L25b is an abomination but L45c4b is not. >Some laws should be publicized or cancelled. I agree completely with that principle, but not with its application to this case. >Yvan. 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 Tue Oct 9 07:20:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98LJi924284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:19:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98LJYH24280 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:19:38 +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 f98LE0u21070 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:14:00 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011008145435.00a0bec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 16:14:57 -0500 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:47 PM 10/8/01 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson > >| Laval Dubreuil writes > >| These sort of judgement rulings really require the TD to be there, >so >| I might rule differently at the table, dependent on what was said. >| >| But it sounds to me like someone casually calling club meaning the >top >| one, so I would probably rule #2. >| >| -- >| David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >I am in agreement with DWS that I am dissatisfied with the >completeness of the facts. So far the only thing I am convinced I agree and disagree--I agree the facts are incomplete, but I don't think they could easily have been made complete in a text. [I.e., I think this is one of those cases where you have to be there to make a good ruling, just as, for example, you very often cannot describe a controversial basketball play in text and say "should the referee have called this a foul?"] >of is >that declarer did not deny he called for a 'club' and did not say >anything until after the Club 7 became visible or during the minute it >took the TD to arrive. There certainly is room for pause in that >scenario and where there is room there lacks incontovertibility. I think this is an impossibly harsh standard for determining incontrovertibility. Suppose I say "club" while in my mind I am certainly thinking "club jack". I will almost certainly not realize that what I said will be interpreted as the lead of a small club until dummy pulls a small club, RHO plays a club, or both. So if the only way declarer's intention can be incon. is for him to correct his designation before anything at all happens, then this law will never be applied. (Since you don't like this like, you may perhaps find this thought comforting.) By the same token, do you want to say that because declarer called for the TD _first_ and then said what he wanted to play _second_, that this means that it's not obvious what he wanted to do at the time? Why on earth was he calling the director, then, if not because the card that was played was not the one he wanted? >I am thinking that the sole basis for ruling [2] is in the case where >declarer fully satisfies the conditions set forth in L45C4b (if >incontrovertibility of intention is satisfied, then to let stand a >correction the player's action must satisfy L45C4b; which means that >there is a limited duration of time to set things straight). imo You're not the only one to bring up this law, but I think it is totally irrelevant. In any case, there is no reason in this case to think that there was any pause for thought _from the moment he realized what his call meant_ to the _moment where he called the TD to try to change the call_. In other words, I'm not sure there are cases where I would have held that declarer's intention was incontrovertible but there was a pause for thought between the realization of what has happened and the attempt to correct it. I.e., I am not sure there are any cases where I would hold the incon. standard of L46 to have been satisfied but refuse to allow a change because of L45. >this incontrovertible thing in L46 is an abomination. When you start >worrying more about what can be done with the cards than what players >do with them the game is not worth playing. I don't dislike it at all--indeed, I would think the game far less worth playing if there was incontrovertible evidence that someone intended to play X but he was required to play Y instead because he misspoke or something. [Again, I am making no claim about whether in the actual [hypothetical] case the evidence was conclusive or not. I cannot judge that without being at the table. But I do not think that any considerations of 'pause for thought' show that it was not incon.] >Anyway, let's assume in this case [whether true or not and not >suggesting that such an assumption should be made in rulling] the >intention >was incontrovertible. Then for the fact presented, declarer did not >correct his designation without pause, the orignal designation must >stand. He did attempt to correct his designation without pause-- he called the TD as soon as he saw what was happening. But I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that it is possible for declarer's intent to be incon. under L46 but we should disallow a change anyway under L45? >regards >roger pewick 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 Tue Oct 9 07:23:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98LN5o24296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f98LMxH24292 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15qhmV-0004hD-01; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 23:17:47 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.0.165.86]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15qhlu-0j4MzoC; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:17:10 +0200 Message-ID: <3BC217E5.747D992F@t-online.de> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 23:17:25 +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: Laval Dubreuil CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Law25B? References: 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 Laval Dubreuil schrieb: > Hi BKMLrs, > > Last weekend, in a regional tournament, this auction occurred: > > N E S W > 1NT P 4D P > 4S... oh sh.. TD > > North called the TD saying he made a mistake. When asked by > the TD, he clearly said 4S was not an inadvertent bid, using > bidding box, but a silly mistake. He never said "I would have > bid 4H as required" or made other try to change his call. > > What is the correct ruling ? > > 1) Deem that N made or want to make a change of call (to 4H) > and apply Law 25B (no inadvertent call). > > 2) As N has not really made an other call, simply rule > that "I made a mistake" is UI to S and tell him he must > use 4S as it is (a super accept on their CC). > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > Hi, in fact you must do both. Since you have been called as TD you must explain all relevant laws to the players. This means ruling that the call was not inadvertent ( he never meant to call 4H), and now explaining L25B with all ramifications to all players, and telling N/S that 4S will be UI if North doesn't change his call and has to be treated accordingly. Furthermore you will have to let the rest of the room a five-minute break while this table catches up..... Cheers 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 Tue Oct 9 07:24:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98LOeI24308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:24:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98LOYH24304 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 07:24:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f98LJN471716 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:19:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011008170752.00af63e0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:19:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Who's to ... claim? In-Reply-To: <000a01c14fd3$27e07600$1d56a8c0@esat.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_18235899==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_18235899==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 04:28 AM 10/8/01, Takis wrote: > - > A852 > - > x > >A9 >- Immaterial >K7 >9 > > J87 > - > AQ > - > >Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, discards the Queen of Diamonds and >spreads his hand saying: "I will give two trumps to West". > >West calls the director saying that he discards his diamonds and if >declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose 3 tricks. > >Is the play of a trump irrational? Yes. Declarer's statement is sufficient to establish that he knows what the position is and intends to play correctly for two losers. If he had claimed the rest of the tricks, for example, we could find that it wouldn't be irrational to lose three tricks, but it would be irrational to misplay in this position when it is known. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_18235899==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 04:28 AM 10/8/01, Takis wrote:
 
      -
      A852
      -
      x
 
A9
-          Immaterial
K7
9
 
      J87
      -
      AQ
      -
 
Declarer plays the Ace of hearts, discards the Queen of Diamonds and spreads his hand saying: "I will give two trumps to West".
 
West calls the director saying that he discards his diamonds and if declarer ruffs in hand and plays a trump, he will loose 3 tricks.
 
Is the play of a trump irrational?

Yes.  Declarer's statement is sufficient to establish that he knows what the position is and intends to play correctly for two losers.  If he had claimed the rest of the tricks, for example, we could find that it wouldn't be irrational to lose three tricks, but it would be irrational to misplay in this position when it is known.


Eric Landau                     elandau@cais.com
APL Solutions, Inc.             elandau@acm.org
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 589-4621
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_18235899==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 08:03:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98M2vo24332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:02:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98M2pH24328 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:02:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f98Lvfo10564 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 17:57:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011008174257.00ab6c30@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 17:57:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <200110081935.MAA15110@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:35 PM 10/8/01, Adam wrote: > > Norht > > Q 4 3 2 > > K 8 3 > > K 5 2 > > J 9 5 2 > > East West > > K 10 5 6 > > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 > > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > > South > > A J 9 8 7 > > A 5 2 > > J 8 4 > > K 8 > > > > Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, > > dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and > > finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer > > takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. > > Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and > > tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing > > this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. > >I'm a little lost. Wasn't the C2 already played at the first trick? > >If not, why not? Did declarer actually insert the 9 from dummy when >looking at the 8 in his hand? > >And why aren't East and West sitting in the right seats? > >And how come "Norht" has 14 cards and West, who is sitting in East's >chair, has only 12? > >I'd say everyone should get penalized for this one. Technically, I >can't find a Law making it illegal to finesse the 9 from dummy when >you're staring at the 8 in your own hand, but I really hate to make >South feel left out. This might be an example of the "L46B2 Coup", a maneuver I've been known to use myself on occasion. By taking advantage of L46B2 to properly designate the C9 by saying only "club", South has lulled East into underplaying the C7, and may now be in a position to make nine tricks without having to guess diamonds. It is tempting to rule for the C9 to stand, just to see if declarer will realize what he has done. I say "might" and "may" because it's a bit troublesome to analyze the play after declarer's discard of a diamond on the CJ, depending as it does on which of North's cards is actually East's. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 08:04:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f98M4hF24344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:04:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f253.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f98M4cH24340 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 08:04:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Oct 2001 14:59:25 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Oct 2001 21:59:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 16:59:24 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2001 21:59:25.0151 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E6326F0:01C15044] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Grant Sterling >To: "blml" >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B >Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 16:14:57 -0500 > >At 12:47 PM 10/8/01 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Stevenson >> >>| Laval Dubreuil writes >> >>| These sort of judgement rulings really require the TD to be there, >>so >>| I might rule differently at the table, dependent on what was said. >>| >>| But it sounds to me like someone casually calling club meaning the >>top >>| one, so I would probably rule #2. >>| >>| -- >>| David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >> >>I am in agreement with DWS that I am dissatisfied with the >>completeness of the facts. So far the only thing I am convinced > > I agree and disagree--I agree the facts are incomplete, >but I don't think they could easily have been made complete >in a text. [I.e., I think this is one of those cases where >you have to be there to make a good ruling, just as, for >example, you very often cannot describe a controversial >basketball play in text and say "should the referee have >called this a foul?"] > >>of is >>that declarer did not deny he called for a 'club' and did not say >>anything until after the Club 7 became visible or during the minute it >>took the TD to arrive. There certainly is room for pause in that >>scenario and where there is room there lacks incontovertibility. > > I think this is an impossibly harsh standard for >determining incontrovertibility. Suppose I say "club" while >in my mind I am certainly thinking "club jack". I will >almost certainly not realize that what I said will be >interpreted as the lead of a small club until dummy pulls >a small club, RHO plays a club, or both. So if the only way >declarer's intention can be incon. is for him to correct >his designation before anything at all happens, then this >law will never be applied. (Since you don't like this like, >you may perhaps find this thought comforting.) > By the same token, do you want to say that because >declarer called for the TD _first_ and then said what he >wanted to play _second_, that this means that it's not >obvious what he wanted to do at the time? Why on earth >was he calling the director, then, if not because the >card that was played was not the one he wanted? > >>I am thinking that the sole basis for ruling [2] is in the case where >>declarer fully satisfies the conditions set forth in L45C4b (if >>incontrovertibility of intention is satisfied, then to let stand a >>correction the player's action must satisfy L45C4b; which means that >>there is a limited duration of time to set things straight). imo > > You're not the only one to bring up this law, but I think >it is totally irrelevant. In any case, there is no reason >in this case to think that there was any pause for thought >_from the moment he realized what his call meant_ to the >_moment where he called the TD to try to change the call_. > > In other words, I'm not sure there are cases where >I would have held that declarer's intention was >incontrovertible but there was a pause for thought between >the realization of what has happened and the attempt to >correct it. I.e., I am not sure there are any cases where >I would hold the incon. standard of L46 to have been >satisfied but refuse to allow a change because of L45. > >>this incontrovertible thing in L46 is an abomination. When you start >>worrying more about what can be done with the cards than what players >>do with them the game is not worth playing. > > I don't dislike it at all--indeed, I would think >the game far less worth playing if there was incontrovertible >evidence that someone intended to play X but he was required >to play Y instead because he misspoke or something. Maybe you think it is wort playing where declarer gets 14 or 15 or 20 turns to play his 13 cards and the defender gets 13. Maybe you don't. But if declarer is to get extra turns then surely it must be against a very high standard- except you believe it must be against a very low standard. > [Again, I am making no claim about whether in the >actual [hypothetical] case the evidence was conclusive or >not. incontrovertible means conclusive. A player who intended CJ would know immediately upon stating 'club' that he did not call for the jack- and the normal reaction of such a person would be to say immediately, 'I mean jack.' My comments suggest that this did not happen. >I cannot judge that without being at the table. But >I do not think that any considerations of 'pause for >thought' show that it was not incon.] >>Anyway, let's assume in this case [whether true or not and not >>suggesting that such an assumption should be made in rulling] the >>intention >>was incontrovertible. Then for the fact presented, declarer did not >>correct his designation without pause, the orignal designation must >>stand. > > He did attempt to correct his designation without pause-- >he called the TD as soon as he saw what was happening. > But I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that >it is possible for declarer's intent to be incon. under L46 >but we should disallow a change anyway under L45? reading the law it says that if declarer's actual intention was incontrovertible, eg the only card he INTENDED to designate was the CJ then 46B[2] [etc] does not apply. It does not say what card is in fact designated in the absence of L46. Only 45 does that, namely 45C4b. iow there is no specification in the law for designating the card by mind reading. To designate requires positive action. Calling the TD is not an action of designating a card. Only naming or touching the card is designating a card. regards roger pewick >>regards >>roger pewick > > Respectfully, > Grant _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 11:30:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f991TgC00135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:29:42 +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 f991TYH00130 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:29:35 +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 BAA31170 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 01:24:24 GMT Message-ID: <85uoS6AjFlw7EwhV@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 02:22:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Laval Dubreuil writes >Hi BLMLrs, > > > >B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the >card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply >(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): > >2. Designates Suit but Not Rank >If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to >have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. > > Norht > Q 4 3 2 > K 8 3 > K 5 2 > J 9 5 2 > East West > K 10 5 6 > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > South > A J 9 8 7 > A 5 2 > J 8 4 > K 8 > >Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, >dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and >finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer >takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. >Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and >tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing >this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. > >Your ruling please. > I rule the deuce is played. There are some who wouldn't -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 12:03:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9923Mv00170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:03:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9923GH00166 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15qm9k-000Kub-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 02:58:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:51:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B 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 Roger Pewick writes >I am thinking that the sole basis for ruling [2] is in the case where >declarer fully satisfies the conditions set forth in L45C4b (if >incontrovertibility of intention is satisfied, then to let stand a >correction the player's action must satisfy L45C4b; which means that >there is a limited duration of time to set things straight). imo >this incontrovertible thing in L46 is an abomination. When you start >worrying more about what can be done with the cards than what players >do with them the game is not worth playing. > >Anyway, let's assume in this case [whether true or not and not >suggesting that such an assumption should be made in rulling] the >intention >was incontrovertible. Then for the fact presented, declarer did not >correct his designation without pause, the orignal designation must >stand. This is using the wrong Law. It is not a question of changing a designation under L45C4B, but of an incomplete designation under L46B. Thus the question of a pause is not relevant. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 13:21:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f993Kj601166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:20:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f993KdH01162 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:20:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-45-223.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.45.223] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15qnMc-000EPb-00; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 04:15:26 +0100 Message-ID: <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Yvan Calame" References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 22:23:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B > > Some laws should be publicized or cancelled. > > Yvan. > +=+ Or even read? There is a case for part of the preparation of players for international competitions to include familiarisation with aspects of law that bear on players' procedure. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 13:57:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f993vMJ01201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:57:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f993vCH01197 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:57:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id NAA19380; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:51:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma019374; Tue, 9 Oct 01 13:51:55 +1000 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f993psu10296 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f993psS10290 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:51:54 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA00430; Tue, 9 Oct 01 13:52:04 EST Message-Id: <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:51:53 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, Grattan wrote: > +=+ Or even read? There is a case for > part of the preparation of players > for international competitions to > include familiarisation with aspects > of law that bear on players' procedure. > ~ G ~ +=+ > All well and good. I suspect I am one of the better read players and I would be hard pressed to say when I can change calls and when I can't. Perhaps if there was a simple summary of - Situations in which you must call the director (eg: LOOT, [mM]PC, disputed claim etc.) - Situations in which you need to know that there is a law (when can you change a call, play etc., use of UI etc.) it would make it easier for the average player. Back to the case in point, as a player I have been taught that if I have AQ in dummy and lead up for a finesse and say Queen I am stuck with that even if West has 'tricked' me by putting in the king. I think this is simple and understandable. This is despite it being incontrovertible that I meant to take the finesse in a 'sensible' fashion. Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card and only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again occasionally I suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to lead the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly silly and an unnecessary burden on players. Best Regards, Peter Newman -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 18:06:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99864W28816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:06:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9985tH28807 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:05:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-18.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.18]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9980hT04000 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:00:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC171B7.180B6F10@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:28:23 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> <3BBECF74.6F830B1A@village.uunet.be> <006f01c14f70$2799b200$063b7bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > > Without questioning the "anticipated" and "frequency" in > > your quotes (I still might), I will accept that this is > > "partnership understanding". > > > +=+ The quotes are taken from official WBF documents, > endorsed in the case of the CoP by the EBL, and promulgated > to all NBOs.+=+ I was not questioning the validity of the quote - merely the application to my particular case. Or rather, I was not questioning it, but not agreeing to it either. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 18:06:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99866828817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:06:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9985xH28812 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:06:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-18.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.18]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9980mT04041 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:00:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC17431.AF0B743C@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 11:38:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <000201c14d39$1ff04840$af43063e@dodona> <003f01c14d5d$80e0d4c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <002101c14d76$ade302e0$05427bd5@dodona> <3BBECF74.6F830B1A@village.uunet.be> <006d01c14f70$252ca9a0$063b7bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > Please Grattan - and do tell us your personal > > opinion if no WBF opinion exists - does that > > equate or not to partnership agreement and > > system regulations being in force ? > > > +=+ I think my personal opinions are apparent > from other contributions to this thread. It was > my drafting,with minimal amendment, that produced > the official WBF recommendation (adopted by > the EBL) constituting a regulation where it is > adopted: > > "Psychic Calls > > Definition of Psychic Call: "a deliberate and gross > misstatement of honour strength or suit length". > > A psychic call is lawful if not based upon a > partnership understanding. No penalty or score > adjustment may be awarded against such > lawful action. A partnership understanding > exists if it is explicitly agreed by the partnership; that is obvious - although I might still question it. > alternatively it may exist because it is the > implicit consequence of one of a number of > circumstances. This is more to my liking. (***) > To deem that such an implicit > understanding exists it must be determined > that the partner of the player who psyches has > a heightened awareness that in the given > situation the call may be psychic. see my reaction below why I believe this is not a sufficient condition. > This will be > the case only if in the opinion of the committee > one of the following circumstances is established: > (a) similar psychic action has occurred in the > partnership on several occasions in the past, > and not so long ago that the memory of the > actions has faded in the partner's mind - habit > is to be identified when an occurrence is so > frequent that it may be anticipated; or I believe the H1H is so infrequent that it cannot be readily anticipated. > (b) in the recent past a similar psychic call has > occurred in the partnership and it is considered > the memory is so fresh that it cannot have faded > from mind; or > (c) psychic calls of various kinds have occurred > in the partnership with such frequency, and > sufficiently recently, that the partner is clearly > aware of the tendency for such psychic calls to > occur; or > (d) the members of the partnership are mutually > aware of some significant external matter that > may help recognition of the psychic call. > ................ omissis .............. > Players who are found to have any explicit > agreement concerning psychic calls, or an > implicit agreement concerning a particular > kind of psychic call, are to be reminded that > they have a partnership agreement that is > subject to the regulations established under > the authority of Law 40D." {WBF CoP} > ~ G ~ +=+ (***) let me explain. I (personally) see no problem in my current situation. Although my partner knows I am able to perform the H1H, he has no way of telling whether or not any of my 3rd hand openings are weak or strong. He has no way of bidding to catch the weak hand, and will raise to 4 on suitable hands. I try to inform my opponents of the possibility. I do not believe this should be banned, nor do I believe this can effectively be done - I simply go back underground and not reveal I have done it before (practically impossible in my case but not for others) and there is no way the TD will be able to even suspect partnership understanding. The second of the WBF phrases is far more harmful, IMO. If I agree with partner that 2Cl is always weak, but that with any but very weak hands partner is to reply 2Di, then if I psyche the 2Cl opening with a weak hand in diamonds, it does not really matter whether I have done it before or not - nor whether partner knows about it or not. The system caters for the weak possibility and it should therefor be considered systemic. I think the second "psyche" is more harmful than the first, and the second should be banned, not the first. As it stands, apparently the first can be banned, not the second. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 18:07:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9987IU28835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:07:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9987CH28831 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:07:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA06284; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:00:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA25962; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:01:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011010095352.00a89140@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:01:28 +0200 To: "Laval Dubreuil" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:37 8/10/2001 -0400, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > > Norht > Q 4 3 2 > K 8 3 > K 5 2 > J 9 5 2 > East West > K 10 5 6 > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > South > A J 9 8 7 > A 5 2 > J 8 4 > K 8 > >Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, >dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and >finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer >takes in hand and plays an other trump to the Q in dummy. >Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and >tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing >this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. AG : why didn't he do, then ? There are cases where South does want to ruff the small club before coming back to the table and taking the master club. Here, it would not work, as we all know, since he has no way to go back to the dummy. There are also (uncommon) cases where he wants to engineer a loser-on-loser play while still having a master card in the suit (perhaps because he doesn't want to squeeze himself). Thus, declarer's intention was not absolutely clear. This will be the case every time the card played to initiate a trick is not from the same suit as the previous trick was. 'Incontrovertible intention' should be limited to the case where the line of play was already going, ie reeling off dummy's long suit, especially at notrumps. The lazy habit of not specifying '_small_ plum' when playing a small card leads to this sort of errors. Too bad for South. Best regards, Alain. >Your ruling please. > >1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the > lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. > >2) Declarer's intention was to play CJ (incontrovertible). > >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 9 19:55:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f999sc628874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f999sXH28870 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:54:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.84]) by mailin9.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GKXNKV00.0T8 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:55:43 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-69.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.69]) by bwmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8341/8628104); 09 Oct 2001 19:55:43 Message-ID: <018301c150a7$8b945840$45d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:48:26 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: >B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call >In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the >card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply >(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): > >2. Designates Suit but Not Rank >If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to >have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. > > Norht > Q 4 3 2 > K 8 3 > K 5 2 > J 9 5 2 > East West > K 10 5 6 > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > South > A J 9 8 7 > A 5 2 > J 8 4 > K 8 > >Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, >dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and >finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer >takes in hand and plays another trump to the Q in dummy. >Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and >tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing >this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. > >Your ruling please. > >1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the > lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. Why does dummy still contain C2? Declarer has unblocked C9 and C5 at Tricks One and Two in order to retain C2 in dummy. This is merely very bad play at Trick One but it is extraordinarily abnormal play at Trick Two. Why are others on BLML unconcerned by this weirdness? Declarer seems to have deliberately specified C5 or C9 at Trick Two rather than simply saying "club". Having checked that this is what did happen, and that N/S are not playing Cooper Echos, my ruling after South has switched tack by saying "club" without specifying which club, would logically be that C2 must be played. In the real world, the above sequence of events by South would defy logic, so I think that the facts as presented did not happen. If I were the Chief TD, I would go to the table myself and find out what really happened as the TD seems to be pulling my leg. To add to the weirdness, RHO had probably discarded C4 and a heart on the trumps, becoming endplayed when he won C7. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 01:33:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99FXIA04901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 01:33:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99FX8H04897 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 01:33:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15qynF-000DNP-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:27:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:46:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <018301c150a7$8b945840$45d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <018301c150a7$8b945840$45d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >Laval Du Breuil wrote: >>B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call >>In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the >>card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply >>(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): >> >>2. Designates Suit but Not Rank >>If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to >>have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. >> >> Norht >> Q 4 3 2 >> K 8 3 >> K 5 2 >> J 9 5 2 >> East West >> K 10 5 6 >> Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 >> Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 >> Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 >> South >> A J 9 8 7 >> A 5 2 >> J 8 4 >> K 8 >> >>Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, >>dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and >>finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer >>takes in hand and plays another trump to the Q in dummy. >>Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and >>tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing >>this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. >> >>Your ruling please. >> >>1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the >> lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. >Why does dummy still contain C2? > >Declarer has unblocked C9 and C5 at Tricks One and Two >in order to retain C2 in dummy. This is merely very bad play >at Trick One but it is extraordinarily abnormal play at Trick Two. >Why are others on BLML unconcerned by this weirdness? It is quite common when describing a hand, often from memory, to lose track of things like small cards, which do not initially seem relevant. Of course, we can refuse to discuss an interesting case because the original poster seems to have got a detail or two wrong, but I think we could also assume the S9 was played at T1 [yes, people do with that holding] and that the current holding in dummy is actually J5 not J2. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 01:33:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99FX3304895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 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 anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99FWqH04891 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 01:32:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15qyn9-000DNQ-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:27:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:53:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> In-Reply-To: <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman writes >Back to the case in point, as a player I have been taught that if I have AQ >in dummy and lead up for a finesse and say Queen I am stuck with that even >if West has 'tricked' me by putting in the king. > >I think this is simple and understandable. This is despite it being >incontrovertible that I meant to take the finesse in a 'sensible' fashion. > >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card and >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again occasionally I >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to lead >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. > >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 02:07:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99G6um06174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:06:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f99G6nH06149 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:06:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.108]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f99G1bT15667 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:01:37 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC2B2DD.A426D90F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 10:18:37 +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: unbegreiflich; was Herman 1S; was Re: [BLML] awakening allowance References: <200110081028.LAA22596@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > > +=+ > > Dictionary. > > > > 'Understanding': a mutual arrangement or agreement; > > something agreed on; an informal > > or unspoken agreement. > > 'Agreement' : a mutual understanding; a position or > > result of agreeing. > > > > > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > The GCoC Appendix 4 (reproduced below) uses "understanding" and "agreement" > to distinuish between different approach to psyching/fielding. So there > would seem to be different meanings attached to these words. Specifically, > there are partnership understandings that are not conventions [which are > partnership agreements]. > > The laws use the words (parnership) experience, understanding, agreement. > I would like the next laws to make it clear which of these are synonyms, > and for those that are different: > how are they defined ? > how are they created (within a partnership) ? > are they to be disclosed ? > are they subject to SO regulation ? > > Robin > > WBF: General Conditions of Contest: Appendix 4 > > Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the Laws of Duplicate > Contract Bridge, provided that any partnership understandings or > agreements are disclosed. It would be inconsistent therefore if the WBF > forbade psychics in its own tournaments. > > Some partnerships of reasonably long standing develop understandings > that psychic bids in certain situations will be of a certain type. > These are developed partnership understandings and not conventions, and > should be explained on the Convention Card and on the Supplementary > Sheets. In other words the psychics should be made randomly but any > understandings about them should be revealed. > > Where partnerships have agreements that psychic bids are expected or > are likely in specific situations or where the psychics are protected > by System then a convention has developed. Such psychic understandings > are classified as Brown Sticker Conventions and are therefore forbidden > in certain events. The type of agreement referred to, for example, is > where, third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player is expected > to open the bidding on anything at all. > I think that says it all. There is a difference between an understanding and an agreement. Both need to be disclosed, but only agreements can be regulated. Which still leaves the question : when does an understanding become an agreement. That too is in the text above: > Where partnerships have agreements that psychic bids are expected or > are likely in specific situations or where the psychics are protected > by System then a convention has developed. I believe that the H1H is not "likely" (far more of my 3rd hand openings are real than 0-2 HCP) and are not protected by system. -- 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 Oct 10 02:28:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99GS4F08046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:28:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe62.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.197]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99GRwH08042 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:27:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 09:22:43 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.4.165.227] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <018301c150a7$8b945840$45d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:19:08 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2001 16:22:43.0594 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FBBEEA0:01C150DE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 4:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B | Laval Du Breuil wrote: | > Norht | > Q 4 3 2 | > K 8 3 | > K 5 2 | > J 9 5 2 | > East West | > K 10 5 6 | > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 | > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 | > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 | > South | > A J 9 8 7 | > A 5 2 | > J 8 4 | > K 8 | > | >Against a S contract by S, E leads the C3. W plays CA and C6, | >dropping K and Q. The declarer goes to dummy with HK and | >finesses SJ lost to SK. E exits with a trump. The declarer | >takes in hand and plays another trump to the Q in dummy. | >Then he says "club" and W plays C7. S calls the TD and | >tells he clearly wanted to play CJ and discard a D, knowing | >this card is good and he has no other entry to dummy. | | > | >Your ruling please. | > | >1) The card designated , according to Law 46B2, is the | > lowest in the suit and C2 must be played. | | | Why does dummy still contain C2? | | Declarer has unblocked C9 and C5 at Tricks One and Two | in order to retain C2 in dummy. This is merely very bad play | at Trick One but it is extraordinarily abnormal play at Trick Two. | Why are others on BLML unconcerned by this weirdness? | | Declarer seems to have deliberately specified C5 or C9 at | Trick Two rather than simply saying "club". Having checked | that this is what did happen, and that N/S are not playing | Cooper Echos, my ruling after South has switched tack by | saying "club" without specifying which club, would logically | be that C2 must be played. | | In the real world, the above sequence of events by South would | defy logic, so I think that the facts as presented did not happen. | If I were the Chief TD, I would go to the table myself and find out | what really happened as the TD seems to be pulling my leg. | | To add to the weirdness, RHO had probably discarded C4 and | a heart on the trumps, becoming endplayed when he won C7. | | Peter Gill | Australia. I am thinking that Laval has been very sneaky in not telling us which cards were left in dummy. It would not be difficult to visualize that dummy's 'club' was in fact the 9 which of course would win the trick at this crucial time- providing that south discards something other than a spade. What is odd is that I unwittingly was not duped into assuming that 'club' necessarily meant 'club two'. But, as others have pointed out there is a L13 aspect to this case that may render mute a ruling under L46. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 03:21:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99HKkh08113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:20:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99HKdH08109 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:20:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15r0TY-0007GK-00; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 18:15:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:11:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Peter Newman writes > > >Back to the case in point, as a player I have been taught that if I have AQ > >in dummy and lead up for a finesse and say Queen I am stuck with that even > >if West has 'tricked' me by putting in the king. > > > >I think this is simple and understandable. This is despite it being > >incontrovertible that I meant to take the finesse in a 'sensible' fashion. > > > >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card and > >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again occasionally I > >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to lead > >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. > > > >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly > >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. > > In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Consider the following 2 card ending:- AQ Kx xx xx Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a club so dummy plays the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that it was declarers intention to win two club tricks). B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally screwed because now 45C4a applies. ********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 03:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99HXJR08126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:33:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99HXDH08122 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f99HS1o98682 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 13:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011009131802.00afa210@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:27:47 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: References: <018301c150a7$8b945840$45d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <018301c150a7$8b945840$45d336cb@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 07:46 AM 10/9/01, David wrote: >Peter Gill writes > > >Why does dummy still contain C2? > > > >Declarer has unblocked C9 and C5 at Tricks One and Two > >in order to retain C2 in dummy. This is merely very bad play > >at Trick One but it is extraordinarily abnormal play at Trick Two. > >Why are others on BLML unconcerned by this weirdness? > > It is quite common when describing a hand, often from memory, to lose >track of things like small cards, which do not initially seem relevant. >Of course, we can refuse to discuss an interesting case because the >original poster seems to have got a detail or two wrong, but I think we >could also assume the S9 was played at T1 [yes, people do with that >holding] and that the current holding in dummy is actually J5 not J2. Rather than reporting an odd unblock of the C9, Laval could have simply reported East covering the C9 with the C10. Was this an omission, or the point of the problem? After all, if East covers, we have a very straightforward situation with an obvious answer, given by the majority of those who replied: some variation of, "You had to be there; it's simply up to the director on the spot to decide whether South's intention was or wasn't 'incontrovertable'." I would have thought that the problem was whether it matters to the ruling that South's presumed misplay put him in a position to do better than he could have done had he carried through with his alleged original intention. And whether it would matter whether, if told to "play on", he would have actually pitched or ruffed. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 04:27:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99IQnO08196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 04:26:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f62.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99IQhH08177 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 04:26:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 11:21:28 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 09 Oct 2001 18:21:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 13:21:28 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2001 18:21:28.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[36982130:01C150EF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B >Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:51:52 +0100 > >Roger Pewick writes > > >I am thinking that the sole basis for ruling [2] is in the case where > >declarer fully satisfies the conditions set forth in L45C4b (if > >incontrovertibility of intention is satisfied, then to let stand a > >correction the player's action must satisfy L45C4b; which means that > >there is a limited duration of time to set things straight). imo > >this incontrovertible thing in L46 is an abomination. When you start > >worrying more about what can be done with the cards than what players > >do with them the game is not worth playing. > > > >Anyway, let's assume in this case [whether true or not and not > >suggesting that such an assumption should be made in rulling] the > >intention > >was incontrovertible. Then for the fact presented, declarer did not > >correct his designation without pause, the orignal designation must > >stand. > > This is using the wrong Law. It is not a question of changing a >designation under L45C4B, but of an incomplete designation under L46B. >Thus the question of a pause is not relevant. wrt inadvertent designation L47C specifies that the authority to correct rests with L45C4b AND mentions no other authority. Conversely, L46B tells what law to not apply under a specific condition AND neither does it say where to go. regards roger pewick >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 06:26:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99KQAT28773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:26:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f99KQ4H28769 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:26:04 +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 f99KKJA23467 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:20:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011009134855.00a08c20@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:21:05 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:11 PM 10/9/01 +0100, David Barton wrote: >Consider the following 2 card ending:- > > AQ >Kx xx > xx > >Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. >On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a club so >dummy plays >the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that it was >declarers >intention to win two club tricks). Will he? I'm not so sure. The question with incontrovertible designation does not deal with whether declarer intended originally to finesse or whatever. The question is whether in saying "clubs" what he meant to say was "Club Ace". Or, to put it another way, if he were grabbing the cards and playing them himself in a rubber bridge game, would he have grabbed the Ace? In 'incontrovertible' rule was designed for cases where declarer was trying to play card 'x' but said something that would legally require him to play card 'y' instead without realizing it. So, as TD, I would not rule that his intention to play the A was incontrovertible unless there was some reason to think that declarer really saw that the card played was the K, intended to play the A, but somehow said only 'club' instead. >B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally screwed >because now 45C4a applies. I agree that B is screwed. But I don't agree that this is an unjust difference. If it is not incontrovertible that A would have played the Ace, then A will get the same ruling B gets. So the only time there's a difference is when there is no question but that A was trying to play the Ace and simply misspoke or said "Club" without realizing that it meant "low club" or something like that. The fact that B specified the Queen is pretty conclusive proof that he was trying to play the Q, so the cases aren't parallel. In other words, the only time the two are ruled differently is when there's conclusive proof in the TD's mind that A was trying to play the Ace while B was trying to play the Q. I see nothing unjust about giving different rulings in that case. :) >********************************************* >David.Barton@cwcom.net >********************************************* Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 07:08:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99L8Qg28796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:08:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m07.mx.aol.com (imo-m07.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.162]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99L8KH28792 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:08:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id k.b7.14ed2c2d (4541); Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:02:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:02:36 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b7.14ed2c2d.28f4bfec_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_b7.14ed2c2d.28f4bfec_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And my hat off to Grant for a lucid presentation. Go get 'em man! Kojak. --part1_b7.14ed2c2d.28f4bfec_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit And my hat off to Grant for a lucid presentation.  Go get 'em man!

Kojak. --part1_b7.14ed2c2d.28f4bfec_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 09:09:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99N8Kb13751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:08:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falgate.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99N8EH13735 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:08:15 +1000 (EST) Received: by falgate.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA26008; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from unknown(137.172.19.140) by falhost.fujitsu.com.au via smap (V5.5) id xma026002; Wed, 10 Oct 01 09:02:55 +1000 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f99N2tu05330 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f99N2tS05322 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:02:55 +1000 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA03532; Wed, 10 Oct 01 09:03:05 EST Message-Id: <05f301c15116$877840e0$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:02:54 +1000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B > Peter Newman writes > > >Back to the case in point, as a player I have been taught that if I have AQ > >in dummy and lead up for a finesse and say Queen I am stuck with that even > >if West has 'tricked' me by putting in the king. > > > >I think this is simple and understandable. This is despite it being > >incontrovertible that I meant to take the finesse in a 'sensible' fashion. > > > >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card and > >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again occasionally I > >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to lead > >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. > > > >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly > >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. > > In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? > The difference is that in the case where I specify just 'club' then mind-reading comes into play to work out what I really meant. This is despite a perfectly good law that an undesignated card refers to the lowest in the suit. This is I suppose the nub of what I see the difference is - if 'incontrovertible' could be guaranteed then the current laws would be OK - but I don't see that as possible. I think it means those players who are better at arguing their case get to win more often - particularly with your typical (IMHO) club director. In the original case I have read that 'you had to be there' and I am sure that the directors who frequent BLML would no doubt have a good chance of 'guessing' what declarer intended. Such arguments as 'It was my last time in dummy of course I was cashing the club' are unconvincing to me - if that was the case then say 'cash the club', or even better 'club jack'. I do feel sorry for the declarer in Grant's example who didn't know that club meant lowest club. But no sorrier than for the declarer who leads up to the AQ intending to finesse says 'queen oh you played the king I mean ace' who discovers that they have to play the queen. After they had got it wrong once they would likely remember next time. There is some set of the laws that you do need to know. [Do you feel bad ruling against someone because they made the bid they were always going to make after partner's hesitation as they didn't know about LAs?] Best Regards, Peter I guess this is why I dislike Law 25B *so* much. Make a bid or play. Live with is it. [aside from mechanical fixes in tempo] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 09:13:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99NDAi14760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:13:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f99ND3H14738 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:13:03 +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 TAA16913 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:07:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: TR: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:08:41 -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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoye : 9 octobre, 2001 18:30 A : GillP@bigpond.com Objet : RE: [BLML] Law 46B > > Norht > Q 4 3 2 > K 8 3 > K 2 > J 9 5 2 > East West > K 10 5 6 > Q 10 9 6 4 J 7 > Q 6 3 A 10 9 7 5 > Q 3 A 10 7 6 4 > South > A J 9 8 7 > A 5 2 > J 8 4 > K 8 > > Why does dummy still contain C2? Declarer has unblocked C9 and C5 at Tricks One and Two in order to retain C2 in dummy. This is merely very bad play at Trick One but it is extraordinarily abnormal play at Trick Two. Why are others on BLML unconcerned by this weirdness? _________________________________________________________________ Please forget that C2 and just think there are two clubs left on table (J and x) and no more entry. That is what really happended. Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 09:13:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99NDGj14776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:13:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99ND2H14731 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:13:02 +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 TAA16904 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:07:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: TR: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 19:08:39 -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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : Laval Dubreuil [mailto:Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca] Envoye : 9 octobre, 2001 18:24 A : agot@ulb.ac.be Objet : RE: [BLML] Law 46B AThus, declarer's intention was not absolutely clear. This will be the case every time the card played to initiate a trick is not from the same suit as the previous trick was. 'Incontrovertible intention' should be limited to the case where the line of play was already going, ie reeling off dummy's long suit, especially at notrumps. _________________________________________________________________________ That is whow I understand the word Incontrovertible in Law 46B and how I ruled (players dont have to be lazy and should clearly named card they want to play). As TD I cannot read through heads and see "intention". When I have any doubt I prefer to rule on text (club means the smallest one) instead of intention. The chief TD approuved my ruling. Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 09:22:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99NMNp15216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:22:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99NMHH15212 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:22:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15r67S-000AsB-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:17:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 18:49:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> In-Reply-To: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Barton writes >> Peter Newman writes >> >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card >and >> >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again >occasionally I >> >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to >lead >> >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. >> > >> >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly >> >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. >> >> In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? >> >> -- >> David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >Consider the following 2 card ending:- > > AQ >Kx xx > xx > >Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. >On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a club so >dummy plays >the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that it was >declarers >intention to win two club tricks). >B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally screwed >because now 45C4a applies. I would rule the queen is played in both cases. It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he said "queen". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 09:48:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f99NmJC15237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:48:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f99NmCH15233 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:48:13 +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 XAA00993 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 23:43:04 GMT Message-ID: <5085xmCqn4w7Ewx2@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:36:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> 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 >David Barton writes >>> Peter Newman writes > >>> >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card >>and >>> >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again >>occasionally I >>> >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to >>lead >>> >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. >>> > >>> >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly >>> >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. >>> >>> In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? >>> >>> -- >>> David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >> >>Consider the following 2 card ending:- >> >> AQ >>Kx xx >> xx >> >>Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. >>On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a club so >>dummy plays >>the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that it was >>declarers >>intention to win two club tricks). >>B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally screwed >>because now 45C4a applies. > > I would rule the queen is played in both cases. > > It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he >said "queen". > ARGH. I agree with david. the Queen is played in *both* cases. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 17:38:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9A7bCJ04430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:37:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9A7b6H04426 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:37:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15rDqL-0007lX-00; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:31:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c1515d$13c572c0$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <5085xmCqn4w7Ewx2@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:27:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >David Barton writes > >>> Peter Newman writes > > > >>> >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular card > >>and > >>> >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again > >>occasionally I > >>> >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and have to > >>lead > >>> >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the last time. > >>> > > >>> >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO fairly > >>> >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. > >>> > >>> In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > >> > >>Consider the following 2 card ending:- > >> > >> AQ > >>Kx xx > >> xx > >> > >>Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. > >>On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a club so > >>dummy plays > >>the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that it was > >>declarers > >>intention to win two club tricks). > >>B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally screwed > >>because now 45C4a applies. > > > > I would rule the queen is played in both cases. > > > > It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he > >said "queen". > > > ARGH. I agree with david. the Queen is played in *both* cases. > -- > 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 > -- It is absolutely clear to me (incontrovertibly??) that declarer's intention was to take the normal finesse. ie play the Q unless West played the K. Now for it to become not his intention he must have changed his mind. How/when did this happen? Well the answer is it didn't. He may "UNintentionally" play the Q under the K but he sure as Hell didn't do it intentionally. The law directs us only to consider his intention. Consider the same position when South claims stating that he is playing a card to the Q thus making one or both tricks or even just faces his cards claiming one or two tricks. West objects claiming he was playing the K on the first round. The director should (in my view at least) rule South wins 2 tricks because his intentions were incontrovertible. ********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 17:38:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9A7atf04424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:36:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9A7amH04419 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15rDpy-000HlD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:31:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:59:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Paris MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have told several people on this list that I shall see them at the World championships. Unfortunately the change from Bali to Paris has involved a change of personnel for financial reasons, and the WBF have had to withdraw my invitation. Sad. So, those of you who I promised to meet there, I regret, not this time. I hope to see many of you at the Fall Nationals in Las Vegas. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 17:38:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9A7aqW04421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:36:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9A7ajH04415 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:36:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15rDpy-000HlA-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 07:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:50:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B 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 Roger Pewick writes > > > >>From: David Stevenson >>Reply-To: David Stevenson >>To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >>Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B >>Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:51:52 +0100 >> >>Roger Pewick writes >> >> >I am thinking that the sole basis for ruling [2] is in the case where >> >declarer fully satisfies the conditions set forth in L45C4b (if >> >incontrovertibility of intention is satisfied, then to let stand a >> >correction the player's action must satisfy L45C4b; which means that >> >there is a limited duration of time to set things straight). imo >> >this incontrovertible thing in L46 is an abomination. When you start >> >worrying more about what can be done with the cards than what players >> >do with them the game is not worth playing. >> > >> >Anyway, let's assume in this case [whether true or not and not >> >suggesting that such an assumption should be made in rulling] the >> >intention >> >was incontrovertible. Then for the fact presented, declarer did not >> >correct his designation without pause, the orignal designation must >> >stand. >> >> This is using the wrong Law. It is not a question of changing a >>designation under L45C4B, but of an incomplete designation under L46B. >>Thus the question of a pause is not relevant. > >wrt inadvertent designation L47C specifies that the authority to >correct rests with L45C4b AND mentions no other authority. >Conversely, L46B tells what law to not apply under a specific >condition AND neither does it say where to go. You are still confusing situations. If you designate a play fully then you may not change it unless the designation was inadvertent and you attempt to correct it in time. If you designate a play partially then you go to the Law on partial designation to find out what card has been designated. It is not a change. It is a Law that tells you to which card the partial designation refers. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 17:46:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9A7kTc04459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:46:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9A7kKH04455 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:46:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rDzH-0008ur-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:41:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:40:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <5085xmCqn4w7Ewx2@asimere.com> <001c01c1515d$13c572c0$0200a8c0@david> In-Reply-To: <001c01c1515d$13c572c0$0200a8c0@david> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Barton writes John wrote >> In article , David Stevenson >> > I would rule the queen is played in both cases. >> > >> > It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he >> >said "queen". >> ARGH. I agree with david. the Queen is played in *both* cases. >It is absolutely clear to me (incontrovertibly??) that declarer's intention >was to take >the normal finesse. ie play the Q unless West played the K. Now for it to >become not his >intention he must have changed his mind. How/when did this happen? He didn't. Whatever his plan, at the moment he said "queen" his intention was to play the queen. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 20:21:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AAL3811323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:21:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep02.superonline.com (fep02.superonline.com [212.252.115.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AAKvH11319 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from fahir ([212.253.132.65]) by fep02.superonline.com (InterMail vK.4.03.02.00 201-232-124 license 82877460054e144bf0b390e626dd66fc) with SMTP id <20011010101353.ZHIL13377.fep02@fahir> for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:13:53 +0300 From: "Fahir Uzumcu" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] L30 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:12:31 +0300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1518D.37DC2F20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1518D.37DC2F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi BLML, "Let us assume N to be dealer and South starts with a POOT after which North opens 1C, conventional. West accepts the pass and bids 1S." For this case ruling is so clear. L28b: West who is the correct player, calls 1S. Then North 1C bid cancelled without penalty and he may do any call. But, if TD called before West make his 1S call, we must be very carefull: South POOT and then North BOOT. Now East has right to elect COOT not West. First we must tell to East that he may accept North 1C bid and auction continue with; S:Pas W:- N: 1C E: may do any call. If East elect to not accept N 1C bid then, ( secont) this is West time to decide; he may accept S Pas and auction continue; S:Pas W: may do any call ( if West Pas then North must repeat his 1C bid ( 31A1), if West makes any legal call, then we must apply L31A2 to North.) or he may not accept S POOT ; then we must use L30A , now North's turn to call and he may do any call with thinking his partner must pass for 1 round. ( 1C bid by North is not still exist, because not accepted by East, but it is still UI for South) I think this is the correct procedure and I agree with Ed Reppert who says that "The current law seems adequate to me". Best Regards. M. Fahir Üzümcü e-mail: fahir@akademibric.org adress: Levazim mh. Aktas sit. L Blok D:9 Levent/ Istanbul/ Turkey Tel: +905322661284 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1518D.37DC2F20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" eJ8+Ih8KAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5gQAAAAAAADqAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANEHCgAKAA0ADAAAAAMACAEB A5AGAEQOAAAlAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAB4AcAAB AAAADwAAAFJFOiBbQkxNTF0gTDMwAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAABwVF0CY0eHPLlvXMR1YrdREVTVAAA AAACAR0MAQAAABsAAABTTVRQOkZBSElSQEFLQURFTUlCUklDLk9SRwAACwABDgAAAABAAAYOAJju /3NRwQECAQoOAQAAABgAAAAAAAAASmebfY58vxGrzYJdoJjlF8KAAAALAB8OAQAAAAIBCRABAAAA 9AkAAPAJAAB4FQAATFpGdVhkz3IDAAoAcmNwZzEyNXIyDGBjMQMwAQcLYG6RDhAwMzMPFmZlD5JP AfcCpANjAgBjaArAc4RldALRcHJxMgAAkioKoW5vElAgMAHQhQHQNg+gMDUwNBQh8wHQFBA0fQdt AoMAUAPU+xH/EwtiE+EUUBOyGPQU0JMHEwKDMjgRjjIzGmFFF3IgB20gQ0UaBDlPGn8UQBuvHLV5 cgKDM3MWMRGsMTYWMR7/A4JH/QnRayB0DlAg/yQxIj8DgpZUCHAgdDUkTzg2JX/1HLRCB0B0DeAg dCihFmznG3gHEx0GMzcq/x63LJX/IFYdkRZsIegslCOIFFAwL/clVyyUJuY0D8Ay/iiXLJRXKiYC kQjmOwlvMDi/Zf0OMDU56jsBOr87yTnUO/L/Ol8+Lz3tPW87nznvEGAaUP9DukTRRI9FmTnURcJE L0f/70e9Rz9Fb0k0OQ5QTIRN4YdGA03gAoJzdHlsB5AqaAngdAAAcQMhbGkPAUAFEAFAA/BkY3Rs ewqxAGBzCrBRIBbgUWJuBHVtAgBhYXV0bzEAYGRqdU9QBRBnaF50UIEKAVBQCgFpAZBw/jADMRYy DAEPVxAYCNAJwHNQ4FUjbnBVeVcUAzBz+G5leBcwB7AFsADAAnO5ExBjcw+QAzBS4GRUQHRpdhOA RAEQUpAqQCAaUArAYQnAVGBoIEYbAiFPEzEncFASZmktXQ+QOFPSXNNQnGILIHLPCVBechagXnJ3 NEMhFwD+cAHQWdFRj1KfU6Zc01RP91VfVm9XfmJgMAmAAiBjcc9YY1wwWvBToXQtW5ADYQo6KRBv aTBTdWJqBQWQdGkwRGF0ZTr/W+QooFxvXX9ej1+fYK9hv/9izE+gcDALgA4SY3EMMGOkPw5QZC9l P2ZPZ19oZ1Jl41pQFwEgSGVwMASQW+T/LXBq/2wPbR9uL28+CGBREO0LgGVPgFpQbAFAcD9xTy1y VDCCcAjQYgqwdDj7cuhkBjIewBAWhDF05BNQ8Rdwb29mdT92T3dXgwDzeHALUHkvW6B80AsReOX+ c1vkGmB533rve/99D28//4APYs9j33Rvhi+HP4hPiVL/aVJo9GopHZBQH1Evjx9TT/uRZIKzOZGv kr+Tz5Tfd0hxneBEb2ObIAnwBUBN35FwWTaOE1oGngdjAEChqH9ZsppgeKECICzBT0AFoG3acBNi RQDAAxBTT2IB0P1PEzIAUJj/mg+bH5wvkW+/ns+f36Dvdwuo8KfQLafy1wYArGCnAHQIcGU34xMQ BTjQdgJRIHtVbmsVE1B3FdF9ALFyZ2zsMTR5obVCcrWXIdC1pv5itZIDMKnhtNCqEIzBAYB+bmmw AGAJ8FoAowCFYXhTC2ACQG95CfBcWIBw/0+gACALkBNQWsGMwKqQAOHnAjACYACAYmQMMBNRCrB+ YwEQBbBawAIBWPByMmWUXGgFsHq5EmRntUI7C4G98Gi8IyiAAUFndv++ub1xrGCQ4bWiv0HAO76g /b1wdwBQv0LCA2nAuiAAcF8LMLkRT2CmsA5QdgiQd/prC4BkHsDD8gTwB0AQYX8BQA4AjJJPsKvw xVUCEG/3rJCqkIjgdLTgf1G4Ysbn/6yAAMCrsKqQhWG7kKyAq/H/CTKsIH9wAlAHQAuQyfECUb/E QalQxvDE4aoQAmB3yrOfAlEAIAnAqVC4kHJrvJF/pOIXIRLyakCngLmBE4BDqDpcXGiAb1tBbVuQ 9wMQB5DOME0N4ANgpuABgNwgTwEgDeC9UFzP5g+T67oAp/IudyB0tSAXEKoQv4lwrPJYgAFA0fNa lGO0YecTAgCABZBsdrWA0+EOcP9Y8NPiAZAAINRyxEGjQQHBf9PhFuAPcAAAqzAM0AGQIP4us7TT 9g5Q1JK60dT/1g/91x9sD8CrMAWB2M/Z39rvfmwewKswyyDYn91f3mQpH9dcJ3DcL+EP3kRiICj/ ApHiL9QjKKDf3+Sf5a/mv//UUC1w6ALU3+lv6n/XXBpg/+gP7Y/un++v1FAdkOyP8h//8y/0NAr5 AzCpL6ozq4Wsv/+tz67fr+9X5QjBpREPVEMRL/3J/tY8gHjgaSoQTE2kTCwKhSJMFyAgrCBaIKqA c6MhB7Agq8Ag/mITgA8gxPEK0MMhswB/ET9bgPYDA/AWcAXh3qBQT5xPVAQAuHAFQXdoKmB+aAqF WNEF4YWACfAD8DFoQywgp2BuWlAQ8GnxpvIuIFfPAAPAv5C8UH5wBlEF4BOAqkAWkAVjYuOp8AkB Uy4iAyUDJYkRbwsBFoAJUHbxILyRcnEgvw2xpuAJUE+AqlAKIEwaUP5iaTAKQwegBLANsQsSp2C+ cjjQqhALQIPQudByCUH/yxC7AAwiKRBPsPmgCGQJIPsL0g3RbrxQEfA44AZzBcH3C0A5UCoxeQVj CyGywBUQr3cgBWEVEBHSLgx8Qquw6QlAaWYpEEQRwxQBBNDvvHHN8ApDssBrzfANogww+xHDCUB3 FYGsIQTCeJEWMuU40GZawGw6AyUFtAb09wWBCxESpkIHAQogWNAfwP5FqoADwDDAA/CsUwSSf3H9 ESFDBwK8AAPACkIKIM7Q/zDgEAEalWpAEfAEkh7DBeD/ajAVZgqUErwFcqugqhAJ0V8JUipQq0DN 8AaCOxwWOtNbAAPwVzpo0E5pMBMhzkVpMBWvAzQgSRfgHsN/H+QEoSCSI6YTFh1yCUAo9wYAadBb sSkNhA2xCjQ3sP8EUQSh48Gp8LOQIy0aACcS/yTvJfEusCb2KB4sQRfRCkP/JxIdeRqzONCmsCMC GcITNMEsUDMxQTEpF7MZF/cLghUQT4BnpxEaJB1zGoZvnUCI0Q9gNiEyBJIIYy7/LNANYRV1Krkv sQcCLrA4e+PJkTmRMEEgCUC0wQhU/icK8bNw+aAEoTKzFS8ylf8Ggw2RtKAOYg2iqkG4gAVB/xqz C1O8cRMQDiAFwLjwCiD7LFATJWIVEAhkDbEgkk9Q/9Fw+eBYgA2wF6EE0MTgPWL/KrgYchUQKdJG cRSBnSAOk9lF01VJQ1MFsykDJUmA30FzLOcQm4WgvFBks3EFY+9JgFsxT8AGdEWJcIixprHdEARz EXAK8iMBIhJxCVD/s3AboKNRg9AeoKewzZAD8bn2sHF1zdIEoQRQIgogXxcWClJ4cDfQxkBzFpZN DSERYQewBVDcevxt9GP8AyVlsrNpMKuAVDFmQBlweRFtaYyQ0JAu/cEQZwMlq/AboAQgaTADoDh2 YXot4CgQOnAgQT5ryRAOsZ0gD1EXcGxvuUsQRDqd4FgBo0EvKZBv9gG4kNNQWoBUs3AZgHlNAyVU f7BpMCs5AmAzyXNwNjZyoDg0DHz49P/5v6ofqy+sP50VAFGlVl2mBH0AZHALAAGACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAAADhQAAAAAAAAMAA4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABCFAAAAAAAAAwAHgAgg BgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAUoUAACdqAQAeAAmACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAABUhQAAAQAA AAQAAAA5LjAAHgAKgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAANoUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAB4AC4AIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADeFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAyACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA4 hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAACwANgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAgoUAAAEAAAALAECACCAGAAAA AADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAOhQAAAAAAAAMAQoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAABGFAAAAAAAAAwBD gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAGIUAAAAAAAADAFiACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAA AAAAAAsAeIAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAaFAAAAAAAAAgH4DwEAAAAQAAAASmebfY58vxGr zYJdoJjlFwIB+g8BAAAAEAAAAEpnm32OfL8Rq82CXaCY5RcCAfsPAQAAAIIAAAAAAAAAOKG7EAXl EBqhuwgAKypWwgAAUFNUUFJYLkRMTAAAAAAAAAAATklUQfm/uAEAqgA32W4AAABDOlxXSU5ET1dT XExvY2FsIFNldHRpbmdzXEFwcGxpY2F0aW9uIERhdGFcTWljcm9zb2Z0XE91dGxvb2tcb3V0bG9v ay5wc3QAAAADAP4PBQAAAAMADTT9NwAAAgF/AAEAAAA1AAAAPExQQkJLTE1OTUlES0RMT0ZHTEdM QUVPR0NCQUEuZmFoaXJAYWthZGVtaWJyaWMub3JnPgAAAAADAAYQpT7aiwMABxAsBAAAAwAQEAAA AAADABEQAAAAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAEhJQkxNTCwiTEVUVVNBU1NVTUVOVE9CRURFQUxFUkFORFNP VVRIU1RBUlRTV0lUSEFQT09UQUZURVJXSElDSE5PUlRIT1BFTlMxQyxDT05WRU5USU9OQUxXRVNU QUNDRVBUU1QAAAAAcLE= ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C1518D.37DC2F20-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 20:55:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AAsuh11799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:54:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AAspH11795 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:54:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.9.78] (helo=[217.35.9.78]) by protactinium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15rGvf-0001kx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:49:35 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:49:33 +0100 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >David Barton writes > > >It is absolutely clear to me (incontrovertibly??) that declarer's intention >was to take >the normal finesse. Yes. That intention to take the finesse translated into his intention to play the queen unless the king appeared. This is because he expected a small card to be played rather than the king. He has followed through this intention by saying "queen" before registering that the king has in fact been played. > ie play the Q unless West played the K. Now for it to >become not his >intention he must have changed his mind. How/when did this happen? Declarer has not changed his mind, he has merely failed to notice in time that the king was unexpectedly played. At the moment he said "queen", he intended to say "queen". -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 20:56:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AAuaC11920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:56:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AAuTH11903 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15rGxI-0002TJ-00; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:51:16 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c15178$eccbf740$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <5085xmCqn4w7Ewx2@asimere.com> <001c01c1515d$13c572c0$0200a8c0@david> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:47:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Barton writes > John wrote > >> In article , David Stevenson > > > >> > I would rule the queen is played in both cases. > >> > > >> > It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he > >> >said "queen". > > >> ARGH. I agree with david. the Queen is played in *both* cases. > > >It is absolutely clear to me (incontrovertibly??) that declarer's intention > >was to take > >the normal finesse. ie play the Q unless West played the K. Now for it to > >become not his > >intention he must have changed his mind. How/when did this happen? > > He didn't. Whatever his plan, at the moment he said "queen" his > intention was to play the queen. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 > Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm > -- Sorry I am obviously not making myself clear. It was the scenario in which declarer simply nominated the suit without nominating the rank that I am claiming that it was not declarer's intention to play the Q under the K. I am claiming that it is NEVER the INTENTION to take an obvious 100% loosing line. Such plays are always accidental. ********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 22:12:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ACBaj18917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:11:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9ACBUH18913 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:11:31 +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 OAA22181; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:02:58 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA10223; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:06:08 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011011135311.00a8e850@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:05:48 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] something has to be right Cc: seb_louveaux@hotmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Several threads on blml showed the opposition between the 'if it gives UI, shoot it' and the 'somthing has to be right' schools. The latter seemed to have more arguments. I wonder how you would have treated this intricate case, from a Belgian T4 competition. Teams. Intermediate level. South is not the best player at the table, but has a huge experience, including that of partnership misunderstandings, and knows much about ethics. South's approximate hand : Axx-Qxx-AKxx-AKx. East opens 2S. South overcalls 2NT (nominally 17-19, but what else ?). Undaunted, West bids 3S. Now North alerts 2NT, West asks, North replies "minors", West maintains his 3S bid, and North bids 4C. In N/S's system (or whatever fragments of system they have), 2NT is natural, and 4C is nonforcing (BWYTYCM theory). Now South reflects as follows : Partner thinks I have much less, and bids 4C nevertheless. This is UI to me. I'd have bid 5C, with this nice hand (Axx facing obvious singleton, and all sort of top tricks), but now I feel I have to bend bckwards and pass. But the following fact come out : 1) the 4-level is the limit of the hand for clubs, so that South's action is unexpectedly successful ; 2) E/W complain, quite understandably, that South knew his partner had UI that his partner had less length in clubs than expected for the bid (he indeed had only 4), and must then bend backwards and bid 5C, which goes down ; 3) It's probably irrelevant, but N/S can make either 3NT ou 4H. Now, either pass or 5C has to be right, hasn't it ? So, which would it be ? 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 Oct 10 23:03:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AD39C18979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:03:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AD33H18975 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:03:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9ACvno81769 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:57:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:57:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:49 PM 10/9/01, David wrote: >David Barton writes > >> Peter Newman writes > > >> >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular > card > >and > >> >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again > >occasionally I > >> >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and > have to > >lead > >> >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the > last time. > >> > > >> >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO > fairly > >> >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. > >> > >> In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? > >> > >> -- > >> David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > >Consider the following 2 card ending:- > > > > AQ > >Kx xx > > xx > > > >Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. > >On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a > club so > >dummy plays > >the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that > it was > >declarers > >intention to win two club tricks). > >B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally > screwed > >because now 45C4a applies. > > I would rule the queen is played in both cases. > > It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he >said "queen". This seems to miss David Barton's original point. When declarer's designation of the card to be played is complete, L45C4b applies ("A player may... change an inadvertent designation..."). When the designation is incomplete, L46B applies ("...(except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertable)"). This suggests that L45 permits the correction when the card designated was not the one declarer intended to designate (directly analogous to L25A), while L46 permits the correction when the card designated was not the one declarer intended to *play*. This would appear to allow the director, in the example, the authority to permit the ace to be played on the king only when the queen was designated in such a manner that L46 rather than L45 applies. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 10 23:47:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ADl6o23441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:47:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f131.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9ADl0H23425 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:47:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:41:40 -0700 Received: from 172.169.85.71 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:41:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.169.85.71] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] something has to be right Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:41:40 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Oct 2001 13:41:40.0875 (UTC) FILETIME=[4AB7C5B0:01C15191] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: [BLML] something has to be right >Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:05:48 +0200 > > Dear blmlists, > >Several threads on blml showed the opposition between the 'if it gives UI, >shoot it' and the 'somthing has to be right' schools. >The latter seemed to have more arguments. I wonder how you would have >treated this intricate case, from a Belgian T4 competition. I don't understand the need for bifurcation. I'm assuming that pass and 5C are the only LAs. "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested *OVER* another by the extraneous information." (emphasis mine) Depending on the perspective you'd like to take, pass is suggested over 5C, 5C is suggested over pass, or neither is suggested over the other. There is at least a third option, so neither pass nor 5C is necessarily right nor wrong. I'm inclined to say neither and that South is free to do whatever he wishes. Some people may inject a 4th option. Given that there's no defined metric for what it means to be "suggested over," you can choose two different metrics, one demonstrably suggesting 5C over pass and the other demonstrably suggesting pass over 5C -- each is could be demonstrably suggested over the other. In this case, South can do nothing. His partner has thrown him into a barrel and started calling him a fish. I'm not a fan of that view, but it appears common. This does lead me to a point I was hoping someone else would bring up, though maybe I missed it in the fray. There have been debates here about "auction, auction, auction, really slow pass, pass, ?," question mark in the balancing seat. The LAs are pass, double, and sacrifice. People have argued that double is not suggested over the sacrifice nor the other way around, so the bidder should be free to do either. The law does appear to be written that if double is suggested over pass and sacrifice is suggested over pass then both double and sacrifice are illegal options. Basically, the least suggested of all LAs is the one which must be chosen with tie-breaking at the option of the bidder. -Todd >Teams. Intermediate level. South is not the best player at the table, but >has a huge experience, including that of partnership misunderstandings, and >knows much about ethics. > >South's approximate hand : Axx-Qxx-AKxx-AKx. > >East opens 2S. South overcalls 2NT (nominally 17-19, but what else ?). >Undaunted, West bids 3S. >Now North alerts 2NT, West asks, North replies "minors", West maintains his >3S bid, and North bids 4C. > >In N/S's system (or whatever fragments of system they have), 2NT is >natural, and 4C is nonforcing (BWYTYCM theory). > >Now South reflects as follows : >Partner thinks I have much less, and bids 4C nevertheless. >This is UI to me. >I'd have bid 5C, with this nice hand (Axx facing obvious singleton, and all >sort of top tricks), but now I feel I have to bend bckwards and pass. > >But the following fact come out : >1) the 4-level is the limit of the hand for clubs, so that South's action >is unexpectedly successful ; >2) E/W complain, quite understandably, that South knew his partner had UI >that his partner had less length in clubs than expected for the bid (he >indeed had only 4), and must then bend backwards and bid 5C, which goes >down ; >3) It's probably irrelevant, but N/S can make either 3NT ou 4H. > >Now, either pass or 5C has to be right, hasn't it ? So, which would it be ? > >Best regards, > > Alain. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 02:02:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AG1lH19635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:01:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AG1eH19611 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:01:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15rLic-0000Ds-00; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:56:26 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c151a3$8ebdb140$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:52:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > At 01:49 PM 10/9/01, David wrote: > > >David Barton writes > > >> Peter Newman writes > > > > >> >Likewise, I have been taught that if I don't specify a particular > > card > > >and > > >> >only a suit that it means the lowest. Again simple, and again > > >occasionally I > > >> >suffer (as per our current example where I made a mistake) and > > have to > > >lead > > >> >the low card instead of cashing a winner when in dummy for the > > last time. > > >> > > > >> >The fact that the laws are different in these situations is IMHO > > fairly > > >> >silly and an unnecessary burden on players. > > >> > > >> In what way are they "different"? How would you make them the same? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > > >Consider the following 2 card ending:- > > > > > > AQ > > >Kx xx > > > xx > > > > > >Players A and B both hit on the master plan of taking the finesse. > > >On both occassions West plays the King. A carelessly calls for a > > club so > > >dummy plays > > >the Queen. The director will apply 46B (it was incontrovertible that > > it was > > >declarers > > >intention to win two club tricks). > > >B equally carelessly calls for the Queen of Clubs but he is totally > > screwed > > >because now 45C4a applies. > > > > I would rule the queen is played in both cases. > > > > It was incontrovertibly declarer's intention to play the queen when he > >said "queen". > > This seems to miss David Barton's original point. When declarer's > designation of the card to be played is complete, L45C4b applies ("A > player may... change an inadvertent designation..."). When the > designation is incomplete, L46B applies ("...(except when declarer's > different intention is incontrovertable)"). This suggests that L45 > permits the correction when the card designated was not the one > declarer intended to designate (directly analogous to L25A), while L46 > permits the correction when the card designated was not the one > declarer intended to *play*. This would appear to allow the director, > in the example, the authority to permit the ace to be played on the > king only when the queen was designated in such a manner that L46 > rather than L45 applies. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > Thank you Eric. I thought I was in my usual minority of one in seeing a problem here. I would go further than this however. 100% accept it was declarer's intention when he lead to play the A or Q as appropriate.Also 100% if faced with the K having been played in front of AQ would, if playing rationally, contribute the A. If this does not establish incontrovertably declarer's intention then nothing in any circumstances does. ie if you allow for the possibility of a totally irrational play (perhaps through inattention) then you can never establish incontrovertable intention. The possability of something irrational happening should be ignored in applying L46 as it is in applying the laws relating to claims. ********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 02:24:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AGOfw25216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:24:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AGOZH25205 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:24:36 +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 f9AGIhA11741 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:18:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011010110602.00a057a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:19:24 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <001c01c1515d$13c572c0$0200a8c0@david> References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <5085xmCqn4w7Ewx2@asimere.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:27 AM 10/10/01 +0100, David Barton wrote: >It is absolutely clear to me (incontrovertibly??) that declarer's intention >was to take >the normal finesse. ie play the Q unless West played the K. Now for it to >become not his >intention he must have changed his mind. How/when did this happen? When he failed to pay attention to LHO's play and designated a card from dummy. >Well the answer is it didn't. He may "UNintentionally" play the Q under the >K but he sure >as Hell didn't do it intentionally. The law directs us only to consider his >intention. But I think your own examples refute this analysis. Consider the other case, where declarer does say "Queen". Why did he say Queen? Are you saying he unintentionally played the Queen? No--his _original_ intention may have been to play the Q only if LHO played low, but at the moment he made his play he was intending to play the Queen. Right? The same is true of the person who just says "club". What his intention was when he led the card from his hand is irrelevant--the only thing that counts is what he was intending to do when he partially designated the card from dummy. Unless you can show that at _that_ moment he was incontrovertibly intending to play the Ace, then the Queen is played. >Consider the same position when South claims stating that he is playing a >card to the Q thus >making one or both tricks or even just faces his cards claiming one or two >tricks. West objects >claiming he was playing the K on the first round. The director should (in my >view at least) rule >South wins 2 tricks because his intentions were incontrovertible. I am quite fanatical about being lenient to claimers, and I would probably allow two tricks in the second case. I am not sure that I would allow two in the former case--if he really says he's going to play a card to the Q on the board, he might be stuck with that. But even if I allow two tricks in this case, it is only because claim law allows us to shorten play, and we do not usually require declarer to make irrational plays under those circumstances. If declarer doesn't claim, plays the hand out, and actually makes an irrational play like dropping the Q under the K, then he's stuck with that. >********************************************* >David.Barton@cwcom.net >********************************************* 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 Oct 11 02:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AGQAJ25567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:26:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AGQ4H25550 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:26:05 +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 MAA13000 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA24829 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110101620.MAA24829@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 46B Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > As TD I cannot read through heads and see "intention". > When I have any doubt I prefer to rule on text (club means the smallest > one) instead of intention. The chief TD approuved my ruling. It might be worth pointing out that one of the great benefits of Laval's ruling is that it will be easy to explain to the players. He can simply read out L46A, explaining "should" from the Preface, and then read L46B2. I expect most declarers will then understand the basis for the ruling, even if they dislike the result. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 02:38:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AGcEP28630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:38:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9AGc7H28603 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:38:08 +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 f9AGWTA18243 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:32:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011010112208.00a05870@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:33:09 -0500 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <000601c151a3$8ebdb140$0200a8c0@david> References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:52 PM 10/10/01 +0100, David Barton wrote: >Thank you Eric. I thought I was in my usual minority of one in seeing a >problem Well, I certainly do see your point, I just don't think it's a problem. >here. I would go further than this however. 100% accept it was declarer's >intention >when he lead to play the A or Q as appropriate.Also 100% if faced I absolutely agree. >with the K >having >been played in front of AQ would, if playing rationally, contribute the A. I also agree. >If this does not establish incontrovertably declarer's intention then >nothing in any >circumstances does. ie if you allow for the possibility of a totally >irrational play >(perhaps through inattention) then you can never establish incontrovertable >intention. I disagree. The fact that declarer, LHO having played the King, nevertheless simply said 'club' is strong evidence that he was, in fact, at that moment, playing irrationally due to inattention. This is a common mistake, and we may have to saddle declarer with it. OTOH, the usual case where a declarer in the middle of running a suit from an obviously entryless dummy carelessly says "club-I mean _high_ club" is very different. Players do not typically play Ace-King-[losing deuce rather than the Queen] in this case. >The possability of something irrational happening should be ignored in >applying L46 >as it is in applying the laws relating to claims. It should be ignored unless there is some good reason to think it is what the player was about to do. But what about L45? Why not rule that the player who says "Queen" can take back the Queen? In case it isn't clear: a) I agree that there are cases where the partial designation L46 is more lenient than the full designation L45. b) I _like_ this. c) I doubt if _this_ is one of those cases. >********************************************* >David.Barton@cwcom.net >********************************************* 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 Oct 11 03:17:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AHHGt04805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:17:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AHH9H04801 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 03:17:10 +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 RAA03005 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:11:56 GMT Message-ID: <1bzKKVDT3Hx7EwKO@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:56:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] something has to be right References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011011135311.00a8e850@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011011135311.00a8e850@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.1.0.14.0.20011011135311.00a8e850@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes > Dear blmlists, > >Several threads on blml showed the opposition between the 'if it gives UI, >shoot it' and the 'somthing has to be right' schools. The latter seemed to >have more arguments. I wonder how you would have treated this intricate >case, from a Belgian T4 competition. > >Teams. Intermediate level. South is not the best player at the table, but >has a huge experience, including that of partnership misunderstandings, and >knows much about ethics. > >South's approximate hand : Axx-Qxx-AKxx-AKx. > >East opens 2S. South overcalls 2NT (nominally 17-19, but what else ?). >Undaunted, West bids 3S. >Now North alerts 2NT, West asks, North replies "minors", West maintains his >3S bid, and North bids 4C. > >In N/S's system (or whatever fragments of system they have), 2NT is >natural, and 4C is nonforcing (BWYTYCM theory). > >Now South reflects as follows : >Partner thinks I have much less, and bids 4C nevertheless. >This is UI to me. >I'd have bid 5C, with this nice hand (Axx facing obvious singleton, and all >sort of top tricks), but now I feel I have to bend bckwards and pass. > >But the following fact come out : >1) the 4-level is the limit of the hand for clubs, so that South's action >is unexpectedly successful ; >2) E/W complain, quite understandably, that South knew his partner had UI >that his partner had less length in clubs than expected for the bid (he >indeed had only 4), and must then bend backwards and bid 5C, which goes down ; >3) It's probably irrelevant, but N/S can make either 3NT ou 4H. > >Now, either pass or 5C has to be right, hasn't it ? So, which would it be ? > I think with a 4333 he is minimum for his action (no source of tricks, and pass is pretty obvious. Result stands, for me. John >Best regards, > > Alain. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 04:06:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AI5mN04841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 04:05:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9AI5gH04837 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 04:05:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9AI0So11525 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011010133503.00afb630@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:00:16 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: <000601c151a3$8ebdb140$0200a8c0@david> References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 10/10/01, David wrote: > > This seems to miss David Barton's original point. When declarer's > > designation of the card to be played is complete, L45C4b applies ("A > > player may... change an inadvertent designation..."). When the > > designation is incomplete, L46B applies ("...(except when declarer's > > different intention is incontrovertable)"). This suggests that L45 > > permits the correction when the card designated was not the one > > declarer intended to designate (directly analogous to L25A), while L46 > > permits the correction when the card designated was not the one > > declarer intended to *play*. This would appear to allow the director, > > in the example, the authority to permit the ace to be played on the > > king only when the queen was designated in such a manner that L46 > > rather than L45 applies. > >Thank you Eric. I thought I was in my usual minority of one in seeing a >problem >here. I would go further than this however. 100% accept it was declarer's >intention >when he lead to play the A or Q as appropriate.Also 100% if faced with >the K >having >been played in front of AQ would, if playing rationally, contribute the A. > >If this does not establish incontrovertably declarer's intention then >nothing in any >circumstances does. ie if you allow for the possibility of a totally >irrational play >(perhaps through inattention) then you can never establish >incontrovertable >intention. >The possability of something irrational happening should be ignored in >applying L46 >as it is in applying the laws relating to claims. Quite right, but not really the point I was trying to make. The particular problem I'm concerned with is the one that arises once we stipulate "incontrovertable intention". In the example, we assume that in both cases declarer incontrovertably intended to top the king with the ace, but didn't see the king, and therefore called for the queen, in contradiction to his stipulated incontrovertable intention. The only difference between the cases is the words he used to designate the queen. In the case where his designation was "incomplete", L46 applies, and the TD will (given our stipulation) allow him to play the ace. But if he specified the queen "completely", L45 applies, and, since he intended to *say* "queen", notwithstanding that at no point did he actually intend to *play* the queen, the TD has no such option, the stipulation is irrelevant, and the queen stands as played. I suspect this was not intended by the lawmakers, and rests on the ambiguity of the words "different intention" in L46B. Had they written "intention to designate a different card" instead, the criteria of L46B would uambiguously match that of L45C4b (the queen would stand as played in either case). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 04:38:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9AIc7X04859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 04:38:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f9AIc1H04855 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 04:38:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-140.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.140]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9AIWgB02527 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:32:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC43E19.3399700@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:24:57 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <5085xmCqn4w7Ewx2@asimere.com> <001c01c1515d$13c572c0$0200a8c0@david> <000401c15178$eccbf740$0200a8c0@david> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Barton wrote: > > > -- > Sorry I am obviously not making myself clear. It was the scenario in which > declarer > simply nominated the suit without nominating the rank that I am claiming > that it was > not declarer's intention to play the Q under the K. > > I am claiming that it is NEVER the INTENTION to take an obvious 100% loosing > line. > Such plays are always accidental. > Yes David, and welcome to the list BTW, What David (what is it with all these Davids ?) tries to make you see is that L46 does not apply for unintentional plays, but only for unintentional nominations. Of course the player does not wish the queen under the king, but when he says "the queen", he is deemed to have played her. Similarly, if he says "small", and equally similarly "club". In all these cases, the queen has been designated. I have a (bad) habit of saying "yes" to dummy. I often play with players who don't know the rules and touch cards before I play them. I have told them off, but it means I have to nod to them before they play a card, even an obvious one such as a singleton. If I say "yes" in the situation above, although that could be construed as the same as "club" or even "small club", I (probably) have made it clear that my intention is to play the ace. That is what L46B is about. -- 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 Oct 11 09:58:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ANs9n18199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:54:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9ANs4H18195 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA07293 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:57:37 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:35:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:42:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/10/2001 09:41:16 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened a natural 1C out of turn. Director was called and (after my friend's partner refused to accept the BOOT) my friend also elected to open a natural 1C. Director ruled that LHO could overcall 2C as a natural bid despite the fact that 1C-2C was a Michaels cuebid in the opponents' agreements. How would you rule? 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 Oct 11 12:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9B2uGY18325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:56:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.149]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9B2uBH18321 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:56:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011011025053.ZMGA1134.femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:50:53 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011010223525.007ae2e0@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: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:35:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:42 AM 10/11/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened >a natural 1C out of turn. Director was called and (after my >friend's partner refused to accept the BOOT) my friend also >elected to open a natural 1C. > >Director ruled that LHO could overcall 2C as a natural bid >despite the fact that 1C-2C was a Michaels cuebid in the >opponents' agreements. How would you rule? Allowed, because he could not have known that barring partner would work to his advantage. This is a fairly common issue when you open the bidding out of turn; you may bid 3NT in turn as a guess at the right contract, even if 3NT opening would normally be gambling. The "could have known" rule allows for situations such as a player receiving a 5S response to Blackwood, bidding 5H, and then correcting it to 5NT. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 13:58:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9B3ve918360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:57:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9B3vZH18356 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:57:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA24127 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:01:09 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:39:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scope and Interpretation To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:45:31 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/10/2001 01:44:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The Commission in its entirety takes the firm >position that the Laws should be as short and as >clear as possible. The Commission strongly believes >that minor details should be left to the discretion >of the arbiter. Each arbiter should have the >opportunity, in case of a conflict, to take into >account *all* the factors of the case and should not >be bound by too detailed sub-rules which may not be >applicable to the case in question. 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 Oct 11 16:22:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9B6LlO10072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:21:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02ps.bigpond.com (mta02ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.134] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9B6LfH10056 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:21:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.78]) by mta02ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GL132000.32S for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:22:48 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-239.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.239]) by PSMAM04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8401/31358); 11 Oct 2001 16:22:48 Message-ID: <008a01c1521c$1f51c8e0$efd336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] something has to be right Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:15:27 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Several threads on blml showed the opposition between the >'if it gives UI, shoot it' and the 'somthing has to be right' schools. >The latter seemed to have more arguments. "more" arguments? I think you mean "better arguments". >I wonder how you would have treated this intricate >case, from a Belgian T4 competition. > >Teams. Intermediate level. South is not the best player at the >table, but has a huge experience, including that of partnership >misunderstandings, and knows much about ethics. > >South's approximate hand : Axx-Qxx-AKxx-AKx. > >East opens 2S. South overcalls 2NT (nominally 17-19, but what >else ?). X or 3NT. Most players in this part of the world bid 2NT on about 15-18. 2NT seems like a severe underbid to me. >Undaunted, West bids 3S. >Now North alerts 2NT, somewhat late, in case anyone didn't notice. South (amongst others) should have called the Director - I wonder if he did so? If not, the description of South given above is dubious. >West asks, North replies "minors", West maintains his >3S bid, and North bids 4C. > >In N/S's system (or whatever fragments of system they have), >2NT is natural, and 4C is nonforcing (BWYTYCM theory). I am 99% certain that Eric Kokish would argue strongly that 4C in this sequence must be forcing, on the theory that with most clubby hands, North would either call 3NT or with highly distributional clubby hands 5C, rather than try to land on a pinpoint in four of a minor. If 4C is forcing, then (absent UI) 4D or 4NT is automatic, to investigate whether to play 6C or 7C. However I have based the rest of my comments on the simplification that 4C is non-forcing, which seems reasonable at Intermediate level. Typical hands for a NF 4C might be x, Kxx, QJx, Qxxxxx or x, KJ, xxx, Qxxxxxx x, Axxx, xx, Qxxxxx or even perhaps as weak a hand as x, xx, QJxx, QJxxxx >Now South reflects as follows : >Partner thinks I have much less, and bids 4C nevertheless. >This is UI to me. >I'd have bid 5C, with this nice hand (Axx facing obvious >singleton, and all sort of top tricks), in fact 6C look more than possible (cf sample North hands above). Absent the UI, I don't think Pass is remotely near a LA. You have a magnificent near-perfecto hand for clubs - nice club support, a point or two more than a max, all working cards, CA, SA opposite a certain singleton (not just from the opponents' bidding, but from partner's non-3NT bid too) and very strong three card club support. I do respect South's attempt to be ethical, but with the possible 3-3 fit looming, I think his Pass had much more to gain than to lose. >but now I feel I have to bend backwards and pass. assuming that I have conveniently decided to ignore the 3-3/4-3 (not 6-3) fit aspect, which is a serious omission. >But the following fact come out : >1) the 4-level is the limit of the hand for clubs, so that South's >action is unexpectedly successful ; Not "unexpectedly" at all IMO. Due to the UI South expects 4C to be a 4-3 or 3-3 fit. Such fits have limitations above the 4-level. >2) E/W complain, quite understandably, that South knew his >partner had UI, >that his partner had less length in clubs than expected for the >bid (he indeed had only 4), and must then bend backwards >and bid 5C, which goes down ; >3) It's probably irrelevant, but N/S can make either 3NT or 4H. > >Now, either pass or 5C has to be right, hasn't it ? Not at all. 4D cue as a slam try is a very real possibility. I think that the LAs are probably: - 4D cue (the obvious call IMO, absent UI) - 5C - 6C - 4S cue - 4NT if Belgian intermediates aren't up to cue bidding. - possibly Pass but I personally doubt it. In a Bidding Forum I would expect at least one vote for each of the above (which doesn't necessarily make them all LAs). I think that 4D is probably South's best bid once he has UI. South expects North to have less diamonds than clubs, so 4D could well be a 4-2 fit. If partner continues with 4H, South would of course jump to 6C now that partner is cooperating in the cuebidding. >So, which would it be ? As Alain says, the situation is intricate and difficult to analyse (as is often the case - it's amazing how often someone presents one possibility and then everyone goes for it because it was the first possibility presented - a world class player at the WCs a few years ago was on the AC there and told me that in his opinion this is one of the major failings of WBF ACs). But I have digressed. My vote would be to check out how 4D might play before making my ruling. My eventual ruling would depend on this analysis but would probably be 4D-1 or 4D-2. I wonder about 5C-1 too. After all, my analysis is merely my analysis and may not reflect Belgian Intermediate bidding at all. I do find my own sample hands rather convincing because I chose them fairly randomly before I noticed that on each of them either 5C or 6C is a near certainty. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 20:46:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BAjed00599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:45:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BAjXH00572 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:45:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15rdGE-0005ek-00; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:40:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c15240$9058ae40$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Grant Sterling" References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.1.20011010112208.00a05870@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:36:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let's have one more go at flogging this dead horse before retiring secure in the belief that the whole world is out of step except me!!!! I will start by going back to scenario A where declarer nominated the Q despite West's play of the K. It has been accepted I believe that declarer's intention when he lead was to play the A on the K and the Q otherwise. So what has happened here? Clearly declarer through inattention believes West has played the expected small card and because his INTENTION REMAINS UNCHANGED he nominates the Q. He is stuck with that play as per Law 45. Now we move to scenario B where the suit but not the rank has been nominated. This time the applicable law is 46B. This directs us to determine declarer's (incontrovertible) intention if possible. Only if this is not possible do we take the nomination to mean the Q. As I hope I have shown above declarer's INTENTION is clear so the A should be the card ruled as played! Yes I accept this is a situation where players often make UNintentional plays but my contention is that this is not relevant.The law as written only allows us to consider intention. Thank you for your patience in dealing with my ramblings. ********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 21:50:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BBni804125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:49:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9BBncH04121 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 21:49:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA01245; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:41:05 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA03224; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:44:16 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011012132559.00a6a230@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:43:59 +0200 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] something has to be right In-Reply-To: <008a01c1521c$1f51c8e0$efd336cb@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 16:15 11/10/2001 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: > >Undaunted, West bids 3S. > >Now North alerts 2NT, > >somewhat late, in case anyone didn't notice. South (amongst >others) should have called the Director - I wonder if he did so? >If not, the description of South given above is dubious. AG : you will not believe me, but this particular competition hasn't a specific director attached to it, and such a benign case was well known of everyone at the table : sorry, please take back your bidding card, and no problem about information because partner has not already bid. For more intricate cases, there are TDs in the playing room, but they're playing too (how do you think I know what happened ?), and a fill-in form to be sent to a specific AC. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 11 22:57:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BCueQ05610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:56:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9BCuYH05606 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:56:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-240.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.240]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E65E762E45 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:51:17 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:44:43 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000401c15240$9058ae40$0200a8c0@david> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Barton writes: >I will start by going back to scenario A where declarer nominated >the Q despite West's play of the K. It has been accepted I believe >that declarer's intention when he lead was to play the A on the K >and the Q otherwise. So what has happened here? Clearly declarer >through inattention believes West has played the expected small card >and because his INTENTION REMAINS UNCHANGED he nominates >the Q. He is stuck with that play as per Law 45. > >Now we move to scenario B where the suit but not the rank has been >nominated. This time the applicable law is 46B. This directs us to >determine declarer's (incontrovertible) intention if possible. Only if >this is not possible do we take the nomination to mean the Q. >As I hope I have shown above declarer's INTENTION is clear so the >A should be the card ruled as played! Sorry to come in late, but ISTM that it all hinges on how you define "intention". Declarer's overall "plan" (if you like) is to finesse as you describe. However, having failed to notice that LHO has played the K, his "intention" *at the moment he nominates the card from dummy*, is to play the Q. IMO he is committed to CQ whether he says "club"(L46B2) or "Q"(L45C4(b)). Incidentally, he would have been OK if he had said "finesse", "cover" or even "win it" ( which I believe has been defined as "with the smallest card available"). Perhaps we should all cultivate this habit, just in case! The original situation in this string, where declarer is leading a club from the table is, however, different. Now it could have been incontrovertibly declarer's intention to lead the CJ, and if this is what the TD believes then ISTM he must allow it. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 00:00:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BDxcX14199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:59:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BDxVH14177 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:59:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.11.203] (helo=[217.35.11.203]) by rhenium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15rgHw-0002eC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:54:16 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:54:12 +0100 To: "BLML" From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 46B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > David Barton writes: > > > >Incidentally, he would have been OK if he had said "finesse", "cover" or >even "win it" ( which I believe has been defined as "with the smallest card >available"). Perhaps we should all cultivate this habit, just in case! > "Cover" or "win it" certainly, but is it true that "finesse" would be deemed to have this meaning? I can't find it among the Incomplete Designations in Law 46, and I don't think this is how we use the term in normal bridge language. When we lead towards an Ace-Queen and the King appears on our left we don't talk about "finessing with the Ace". It sound much more as though the situation is the one under current discussion where declarer was intending to finesse with the Queen and has failed to notice that the King has appeared. Gordon Rainsford London UK -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 01:31:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BFUcW18085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:30:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BFUXH18081 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9BFPHC56051 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:25:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011011111618.00af91b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:25:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 46B In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:54 AM 10/11/01, Gordon wrote: >>Incidentally, he would have been OK if he had said "finesse", "cover" or >>even "win it" ( which I believe has been defined as "with the >>smallest card >>available"). Perhaps we should all cultivate this habit, just in case! > >"Cover" or "win it" certainly, but is it true that "finesse" would be >deemed to have this meaning? I should think that "win it" instructs dummy to play the highest card available, unless playing fourth to the trick, in which case it means win it as cheaply as possible. OTOH, "finesse" (which only makes sense if playing second or third) means cover RHO's card as cheaply as possible (as does "cover"), unless RHO has underplayed declarer, in which case it means play low. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 01:32:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BFW6218097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:32:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9BFW0H18093 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:32:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 17590 invoked by uid 50005); 11 Oct 2001 15:21:10 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpf with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4164. . Clean. Processed in 0.116743 secs); 11 Oct 2001 15:21:10 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpf.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 11 Oct 2001 15:21:10 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:26:45 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <31ebst4jggjirkpik4h29kt373pqk7u4tr@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:54:12 +0100, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> > David Barton writes: >> >> >> >>Incidentally, he would have been OK if he had said "finesse", "cover" or >>even "win it" ( which I believe has been defined as "with the smallest card >>available"). Perhaps we should all cultivate this habit, just in case! >> > >"Cover" or "win it" certainly, but is it true that "finesse" would be >deemed to have this meaning? > >I can't find it among the Incomplete Designations in Law 46, and I >don't think this is how we use the term in normal bridge language. > >When we lead towards an Ace-Queen and the King appears on our left we >don't talk about "finessing with the Ace". It sound much more as >though the situation is the one under current discussion where >declarer was intending to finesse with the Queen and has failed to >notice that the King has appeared. > If you go with that idea, Gordon, it seems to me that it opens a real can of worms with regard to timing. In the situation described above, you surely have to grant declarer the two tricks if he calls "finesse" before the king appears? Assuming you agree with that, then at exactly what point does the meaning of finesse change from "cover defender's card" to "play low"? If your answer is that's is as soon as defender plays the king, then we get into really awkward problems.... Defender : I detached the king from my hand before declarer said finesse, he's got to play the queen. Declarer : Defender hadn't turned the king into a position where it could be seen when I said "finesse", so "finesse" still means cover whatever card defender plays. Lots of luck in sorting that one out! Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 01:51:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BFpXh18115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:51:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BFpQH18111 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:51:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15ri2B-0001x1-00; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:46:07 +0100 Message-ID: <000a01c1526b$47d675a0$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:42:00 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Sorry to come in late, but ISTM that it all hinges on how you define > "intention". Declarer's overall "plan" (if you like) is to finesse as you I agree this is all about precisely what intention means. > describe. However, having failed to notice that LHO has played the K, his > "intention" *at the moment he nominates the card from dummy*, is to play the > Q. Now what precisely is meant by this? It was declarer's intention to play the Q on any card from West. - surely not It was declarer's intention to play the Q under the K. - even less likely It was declarer's intention to play the Q on a small card from West. ie intention unchanged Some other - if so what because this appears to cover all possibilities. If in a moment of carelessness I drive my car into the back of yours this does not mean that at that instant my INTENTION was any different than it was moments before (ie to drive safely). It simply means that I failed to put my (unchanged) intentions into practise. > IMO he is committed to CQ whether he says "club"(L46B2) or > "Q"(L45C4(b)). > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > /********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 02:04:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BG40b18133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 02:04:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BG3tH18129 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 02:03:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA07223 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA05069 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:58:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:58:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110111558.LAA05069@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > "intention" *at the moment he nominates the card from dummy*, is to play Do we all agree that *at the moment* as above is the right question? > From: "David Barton" > Now what precisely is meant by this? > It was declarer's intention to play the Q on any card from West. - surely > not Where does the qualifier "on any card from West" come from, and why is it relevant? I would have thought the normal ruling would be that, at the moment declarer nominated a card from dummy, it was his intention to play the Q, given the circumstances he was aware of. Of course he would have had a different intention had he been aware of the true circumstances, but that doesn't seem relevant. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 05:07:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BJ6eH18228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:06:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BJ6YH18224 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 05:06:35 +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 f9BIucL12390; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:56:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:56:51 -0500 To: "David Barton" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Cc: "Brambledown" , "BLML" In-Reply-To: <000a01c1526b$47d675a0$0200a8c0@david> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:42 PM 10/11/01 +0100, David Barton wrote: > > "intention" *at the moment he nominates the card from dummy*, is to play >the > > Q. > >Now what precisely is meant by this? >It was declarer's intention to play the Q on any card from West. - surely >not Certainly so, in the case of the player who did in fact say "Queen". Probably so, in the case of the player who said "club". _At the moment where he called for a card from dummy_ his intention was to play the Q. His intention when he played a card from his hand may have been to play the Q only on a low card, but that's not relevant. >It was declarer's intention to play the Q under the K. - even less likely Not likely, no--he obviously hadn't processed the information that the K had been played. >It was declarer's intention to play the Q on a small card from West. ie >intention unchanged I disagree, obviously. All declarer was probably thinking about was playing the Queen, he wasn't thinking about LHO's card at all. >If in a moment of carelessness I drive my car into the back of yours this >does not >mean that at that instant my INTENTION was any different than it was moments >before (ie to drive safely). It simply means that I failed to put my >(unchanged) intentions >into practise. I think you're thinking too generally. My intention at the time was to push on the gas a certain amount, turn the wheel in a certain direction, etc. Now if I slammed my foot down on the brake, but missed the brake and hit the accelerator by accident, that's a different story. If you can convince me that declarer really was thinking "There's the King, so I'll play the club Ace" but accidentally only the word "club" came out, I'll grant your point. That I formed at one time an intention to drive carefully doesn't entail that I didn't also intend to drive at a certain [too close] distance from your car, etc. I am quite capable [unfortunately] of forming specific intentions that contradict my earlier general intentions. And I am also capable, unfortunately, of forgetting my good intentions at the moment of action without actually reformulating them. [I.e., I don't consciously formulate an intention to drive unsafely, but I no longer act on my intention to drive safely.] > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > > >/********************************************* >David.Barton@cwcom.net >********************************************* Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 06:30:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BKU7600358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 06:30:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BKU1H00345 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 06:30:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9BKNAH06431; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:23:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:15:19 -0400 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Cc: "David Barton" , "Brambledown" , "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:56 PM -0500 10/11/01, Grant Sterling wrote: > That I formed at one time an intention to drive carefully >doesn't entail that I didn't also intend to drive at a certain >[too close] distance from your car, etc. I am quite capable >[unfortunately] of forming specific intentions that contradict >my earlier general intentions. And I am also capable, >unfortunately, of forgetting my good intentions at the moment >of action without actually reformulating them. [I.e., I don't >consciously formulate an intention to drive unsafely, but I >no longer act on my intention to drive safely.] Forgive me if I rehash some things already brought up in this thread, but I want to try to make sure I don't miss anything. :-) This argument, if I understand it, says essentially that action is equivalent to intent. In other words, what one does is always a result of intent. If that were true, there would be no law on the books regarding "involuntary manslaughter." Duplicate Decisions argues that declarer's change of call "must not be allowed" because "his first designation was not inadvertent". I don't buy this argument either. Declarer's intention was to finesse-that is, to play the queen if LHO played low, and to play the ace if LHO played the king. LHO played the king, and declarer carelessly called for the queen. This *is* an inadvertent call, whatever Duplicate Decisions claims. Inadvertent means 1. resulting from carelessness: done unintentionally or without thinking 2. careless: failing to pay enough attention or take enough care Clearly, the call of the queen was inadvertent, by either meaning of the word. Law 45C(b) then allows declarer to change it, if he does so "without pause for thought". So the question is: does noticing that LHO played the king involve "pause for thought"? I think so. If it does, then declarer cannot change his call under 45C, *even though* it was inadvertent. Now turn to 46B. "The following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention was incontrovertible)". Did declarer intend to finesse? Clearly he did. Is there any evidence that he changed his mind and really *intended* to play the queen under the king? Clearly not. "Incontrovertible" means "undeniable: certain, undeniable, and not open to question". It seems clear that declarer's intention to finesse *is* in fact incontrovertible. To say that his intent must have changed because his action changed (ie, because he wasn't paying attention, or had a momentary "disconnect" of some kind between his brain and his mouth) is preposterous. Therefore, the restrictions of 46B *do not apply* to this situation, and we're back to 45C. And as I say above, it seems to me the argument now boils down to whether noticing the king was played involves "pause for thought". As I believe it does, I would rule the queen is played. If someone can convince me it doesn't, I'd be happy to change the ruling, but arguing that his intent changed won't do the job. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8X/9L2UW3au93vOEQImTwCgjftDoCXGePAk+wZjajCoEBdFqzcAoJe/ utfYDQpTCxo+FPLQgw1s75eL =TwbP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 08:40:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BMe3313266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:40:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web2-rme.xtra.co.nz (web2-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BMdwH13262 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:39:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by web2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:34:40 +1300 From: To: Subject: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:34:40 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi The following sequence of events occured: Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; Declarer calls for 'ace'; There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; Dummy played the ace of trumps; rho followed with a club. The preamble to L46B seems to apply in that declarer's intention was incontrovertible. L47F says that the club played is may not be withdrawn excepting an illegal play (revoke) L47B. L47C does not apply as it refers to L45C4b specifically. Neither does L47D as there has been no change of play only a clarification of intention. So what happens to the club? Can declarer be penalized for and incorrect designation L46A or has the defender payed the price for paying insufficient attention to the game? TIA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:10:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BN9wc15090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BN9bH15027 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rosC-000DvL-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:04:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:16:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Law 46B References: <003901c15244$03220720$1200a8c0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <003901c15244$03220720$1200a8c0@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au writes >From: David Barton >> Thank you Eric. I thought I was in my usual minority of one in seeing a >> problem >> here. I would go further than this however. 100% accept it was declarer's >> intention >> when he lead to play the A or Q as appropriate.Also 100% if faced with the >K >> having >> been played in front of AQ would, if playing rationally, contribute the A. >> >> If this does not establish incontrovertably declarer's intention then >> nothing in any >> circumstances does. That is wrong. You are establishing the declarer's intention at the wrong time. > ie if you allow for the possibility of a totally >> irrational play >> (perhaps through inattention) then you can never establish >incontrovertable >> intention. Of course you can - there is no need to be negative! You have to make a decision as to what declarer meant at the moment of the designation, and that is just another judgement decision for the TD. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:10:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BN9vF15087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BN9ZH15021 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rosC-000DvI-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:04:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:12:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >At 1:56 PM -0500 10/11/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >> That I formed at one time an intention to drive carefully >>doesn't entail that I didn't also intend to drive at a certain >>[too close] distance from your car, etc. I am quite capable >>[unfortunately] of forming specific intentions that contradict >>my earlier general intentions. And I am also capable, >>unfortunately, of forgetting my good intentions at the moment >>of action without actually reformulating them. [I.e., I don't >>consciously formulate an intention to drive unsafely, but I >>no longer act on my intention to drive safely.] > >Forgive me if I rehash some things already brought up in this thread, >but I want to try to make sure I don't miss anything. :-) > >This argument, if I understand it, says essentially that action is >equivalent to intent. In other words, what one does is always a >result of intent. If that were true, there would be no law on the >books regarding "involuntary manslaughter." > >Duplicate Decisions argues that declarer's change of call "must not >be allowed" because "his first designation was not inadvertent". I >don't buy this argument either. > >Declarer's intention was to finesse Exactly. Note the word was. That has no relevance. Let us take it back a step or two. Suppose you are playing 3NT with nine on top, and you finesse a queen hoping for ten. You actually say "queen", and being a bridge lawyer when RHO puts his king on it you call the TD and say you did not mean to play the queen. "Why not?" says the TD. "I made an inadvertent designation," says you, "I only said the one word 'queen'". "So?" says the TD. My intention was incontrovertible," says you, "I did not intend to go off, I intended to make 3NT, therefore you can see that I did not intend to play the queen." Before you say this is ridiculous, it follows directly from your conclusion that the original plan of the declarer has some relevance. It does not. When the player says "queen" you have to convince the TD that you said queen meaning the ace of diamonds for the ace of diamonds to be played. >Clearly, the call of the queen was inadvertent, by either meaning of >the word. Law 45C(b) then allows declarer to change it, if he does so >"without pause for thought". No, you may not change it in such a situation. >Now turn to 46B. "The following restrictions apply (except when >declarer's different intention was incontrovertible)". Did declarer >intend to finesse? Clearly he did. True, and quite irrelevant. > Is there any evidence that he >changed his mind and really *intended* to play the queen under the >king? Clearly not. Of course not. He made a mistake through carelessness: he forgot to look for the king. Tough. > "Incontrovertible" means "undeniable: certain, >undeniable, and not open to question". It seems clear that declarer's >intention to finesse *is* in fact incontrovertible. His plan of the hand is of no interest: what matters is what card he intended to play when he spoke. > To say that his >intent must have changed because his action changed (ie, because he >wasn't paying attention, or had a momentary "disconnect" of some kind >between his brain and his mouth) is preposterous. Therefore, the >restrictions of 46B *do not apply* to this situation, and we're back >to 45C. And as I say above, it seems to me the argument now boils >down to whether noticing the king was played involves "pause for >thought". As I believe it does, I would rule the queen is played. If >someone can convince me it doesn't, I'd be happy to change the >ruling, but arguing that his intent changed won't do the job. The question of pause for thought is not relevant. He may not change an inadvertent designation, and the given situation is not an inadvertent designation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:10:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BNA1E15095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:10:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BN9dH15039 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rosE-000DvN-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:04:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:18:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: TR: [BLML] Law 46B References: <002701c15243$f21c1e20$1200a8c0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <002701c15243$f21c1e20$1200a8c0@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: >Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 5:20 PM >Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 46B > > >> > From: "Laval Dubreuil" >> > As TD I cannot read through heads and see "intention". >> > When I have any doubt I prefer to rule on text (club means the smallest >> > one) instead of intention. The chief TD approuved my ruling. >> >> It might be worth pointing out that one of the great benefits of >> Laval's ruling is that it will be easy to explain to the players. He >> can simply read out L46A, explaining "should" from the Preface, and >> then read L46B2. I expect most declarers will then understand the basis >> for the ruling, even if they dislike the result. I imagine a lot of TDs have taken the easy way out in an awful lot of circumstances. That does not mean we should approve of such an approach to the laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:10:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BNA1715096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:10:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BN9aH15025 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rosC-000DvK-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:04:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:58:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.1.20011010112208.00a05870@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000401c15240$9058ae40$0200a8c0@david> In-Reply-To: <000401c15240$9058ae40$0200a8c0@david> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Barton writes >Let's have one more go at flogging this dead horse before retiring >secure in the belief that the whole world is out of step except me!!!! > >I will start by going back to scenario A where declarer nominated >the Q despite West's play of the K. It has been accepted I believe >that declarer's intention when he lead was to play the A on the K >and the Q otherwise. So what has happened here? Clearly declarer >through inattention believes West has played the expected small card >and because his INTENTION REMAINS UNCHANGED he nominates >the Q. He is stuck with that play as per Law 45. > >Now we move to scenario B where the suit but not the rank has been >nominated. This time the applicable law is 46B. This directs us to >determine declarer's (incontrovertible) intention if possible. Only if >this is not possible do we take the nomination to mean the Q. >As I hope I have shown above declarer's INTENTION is clear so the >A should be the card ruled as played! > >Yes I accept this is a situation where players often make UNintentional >plays but my contention is that this is not relevant.The law as written >only allows us to consider intention. Where you have gone wrong is in the timing. Earlier intention is of no interest. At the time the player says "queen" or "queen of clubs" what is his intention? It is to play the queen, in both cases. Thus the queen is played in both cases. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:10:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BNA4415100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:10:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BN9fH15056 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rosK-000DvI-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:04:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:24:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: >> When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened >> a natural 1C out of turn. Director was called and (after my >> friend's partner refused to accept the BOOT) my friend also >> elected to open a natural 1C. >> >> Director ruled that LHO could overcall 2C as a natural bid >> despite the fact that 1C-2C was a Michaels cuebid in the >> opponents' agreements. How would you rule? Personally, I read insufficient bids out from the Law book. L27B: 'If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional, or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply).' The lowest sufficient bid in clubs would have been conventional, so L27B applies. The player concerned can overcall 2C as natural, and will be fairly silly to mean anything else by it, since his partner is forced to pass throughout!!!!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:10:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BNA6415104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:10:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BN9hH15063 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15rosK-000DvJ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: <7KFQiDCvxhx7EwrC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:25:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Paris References: <003301c15243$fdcad720$1200a8c0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <003301c15243$fdcad720$1200a8c0@asimere.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au writes >> Really sorry that you will not be in Paris. It is really sad. Liz and I were looking forward to it, and she has arranged holidays, and various other things. >> Will look forward to seeing you in Vegas. >> I get there the day after Thanksgiving. see you then, also everone else, I trust. >> Hope you are feeling well. Luv, Joan Medium, thks. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:15:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BNFNk16034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:15:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9BNFHH16017 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:15:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15roxk-000G86-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:10:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:08:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> In-Reply-To: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk LIZ.BURROWS@xtra.co.nz writes >Hi Hi >The following sequence of events occured: > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; >Declarer calls for 'ace'; >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; >Dummy played the ace of trumps; >rho followed with a club. That really seems silly by RHO! >The preamble to L46B seems to apply in that declarer's intention was >incontrovertible. >L47F says that the club played is may not be withdrawn excepting an illegal play >(revoke) L47B. >L47C does not apply as it refers to L45C4b specifically. >Neither does L47D as there has been no change of play only a clarification of >intention. >So what happens to the club? It is played. >Can declarer be penalized for and incorrect designation L46A or has the defender >payed the price for paying insufficient attention to the game? We allow insufficient designations always. The defender is just very silly and has paid the price. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 09:32:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9BNWgW19050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:32:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9BNWaH19039 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:32:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA25733 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:36:09 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:14:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:20:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/10/2001 09:19:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Liz Burrows (do you have any cats?) wrote: >Hi > >The following sequence of events occured: > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; > >Dummy played the ace of trumps; > >rho followed with a club. [snip] L46B3(a) specifically states that the ace of clubs is the legally played card. Therefore dummy has revoked, and RHO's play was legal. If the TD permits declarer to change the designated ace under L45C4(b), then RHO may withdraw their club card without penalty. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 17:39:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9C7cJb14993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:38:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9C7cCH14989 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:38:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA09102; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:32:56 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 12 09:30:48 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9EQALU58G000FMM@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:31:54 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:31:58 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:31:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > LIZ.BURROWS@xtra.co.nz writes > >Hi > > Hi > > >The following sequence of events occured: > > > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; > >Dummy played the ace of trumps; > >rho followed with a club. > > That really seems silly by RHO! > > >L47C does not apply as it refers to L45C4b specifically. > >Neither does L47D as there has been no change of play only a > clarification of > >intention. > >So what happens to the club? > > It is played. > The defender is > just very > silly and has paid the price. > > -- > David Stevenson This goes too fast for me, as it might have gone at the table. When a player next in rotation gets the information that declarer plays the ace of clubs from dummy and he follows clubs, why is this considered to be very silly? What I am saying is that calling for the ace here according to the laws should be taken as asking for the ace in the suit he played in the previous trick. So why don't we apply L 45C4b here, where declarer, with the help of dummy, changes an inadvertent designation? Should a defender be penalized for an incomplete designation from declarer? Or: is a defender obliged to look at the table before knowing which card has been played? Nothing in the laws telling so. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 17:45:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9C7j8E15011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:45:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9C7j2H15007 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:45:03 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA31927; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:39:47 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 12 09:37:34 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9EQJRQEXI000FN3@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:39:18 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:39:22 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:39:11 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > >From: > > >> When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened > >> a natural 1C out of turn. Director was called and (after my > >> friend's partner refused to accept the BOOT) my friend also > >> elected to open a natural 1C. > >> > >> Director ruled that LHO could overcall 2C as a natural bid > >> despite the fact that 1C-2C was a Michaels cuebid in the > >> opponents' agreements. How would you rule? > > Personally, I read insufficient bids out from the Law book. > > L27B: > > 'If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid > in the same > denomination may have been conventional, or if the bid is corrected by > any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the > offender's partner > must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and > see Law 23 > when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead > penalties of > Law 26 may apply).' > > The lowest sufficient bid in clubs would have been conventional, so > L27B applies. The player concerned can overcall 2C as > natural, and will > be fairly silly to mean anything else by it, since his > partner is forced > to pass throughout!!!!! What is happening to me on this Fridaymorning reading David's comments? Could you start telling me why you mention L27 here? May be I am still asleep. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 18:01:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9C81LZ15028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:01:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9C81FH15024 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:01:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.105]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9C7tuB00026 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:55:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC5585A.76955633@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:29:14 +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] Another New Zealand problem References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Before we go any further, is there something we are not aware of ? Richard, all these New Zealand friends of yours, are they for real ? Or has NZ in Oz the same reputation as Ireland in Britain, or Belgium in Holland (ie stupid)? But of course, if immi.gov.au means what I think it does, we cannot accuse Richard of bias against foreigners, can we ? Sorry, Richard ! ;-) richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened -- 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 Oct 12 18:25:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9C8Ov318250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:24:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow025o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9C8OnH18232 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:24:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.228.158]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:22:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have to say that I am with Ton and Richard (almost) here 45b tells us that a card is played by naming it and 46B3 says that Ace names the same suit as the preceding trick - dummy has placed in the played position a card not designated by declarer - certainly I shall allow declarer to change his card if I decide his different intention was incontrovertible (as in for example pointing at the Ace of trumps) but I shall not penalise defender for knowing the Laws mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'David Stevenson'" ; Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 8:31 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card > > > > > LIZ.BURROWS@xtra.co.nz writes > > >Hi > > > > Hi > > > > >The following sequence of events occured: > > > > > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > > >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; > > >Dummy played the ace of trumps; > > >rho followed with a club. > > > > That really seems silly by RHO! > > > > >L47C does not apply as it refers to L45C4b specifically. > > >Neither does L47D as there has been no change of play only a > > clarification of > > >intention. > > >So what happens to the club? > > > > It is played. > > > The defender is > > just very > > silly and has paid the price. > > > > -- > > David Stevenson > > > This goes too fast for me, as it might have gone at the table. > When a player next in rotation gets the information that declarer plays the > ace of clubs from dummy and he follows clubs, why is this considered to be > very silly? > What I am saying is that calling for the ace here according to the laws > should be taken as asking for the ace in the suit he played in the previous > trick. > So why don't we apply L 45C4b here, where declarer, with the help of dummy, > changes an inadvertent designation? Should a defender be penalized for an > incomplete designation from declarer? Or: is a defender obliged to look at > the table before knowing which card has been played? Nothing in the laws > telling so. > > ton > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 19:16:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9C9GCA00731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9C9G5H00704 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA01619; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:10:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 12 11:08:40 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9ETP8SZ32000FQW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:10:00 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:10:04 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:09:57 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman asked: > > Before we go any further, is there something we are not > aware of ? > > Richard, all these New Zealand friends of yours, are they > for real ? > Or has NZ in Oz the same reputation as Ireland in Britain, > or Belgium in Holland (ie stupid)? > Are you sure this is only true for Holland? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 20:11:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CABUJ01185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:11:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CABNH01181 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:11:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-170-54.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.170.54]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9CA62B13764 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:06:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC6A8BC.3CECACF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:24:28 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B References: <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <3.0.6.32.20011008195011.00846cb0@worldcom.ch> <004501c15071$19a42980$df2d7bd5@dodona> <044401c15075$bc509d40$7d0fac89@au.fjanz.com> <001201c150e5$7072f740$0200a8c0@david> <4.3.2.7.1.20011010084453.00a9a3c0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.1.20011010112208.00a05870@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000401c15240$9058ae40$0200a8c0@david> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello David, David Barton wrote: > > Let's have one more go at flogging this dead horse before retiring > secure in the belief that the whole world is out of step except me!!!! > Rest assured David, there are more dead horses in the archives of blml, and they still receive their frequent floggings. As for being out of step, I know how you feel. However, > I will start by going back to scenario A where declarer nominated > the Q despite West's play of the K. It has been accepted I believe > that declarer's intention when he lead was to play the A on the K > and the Q otherwise. So what has happened here? Clearly declarer > through inattention believes West has played the expected small card > and because his INTENTION REMAINS UNCHANGED he nominates > the Q. He is stuck with that play as per Law 45. > I do not think there is any doubt about this case. > Now we move to scenario B where the suit but not the rank has been > nominated. This time the applicable law is 46B. This directs us to > determine declarer's (incontrovertible) intention if possible. Only if > this is not possible do we take the nomination to mean the Q. > As I hope I have shown above declarer's INTENTION is clear so the > A should be the card ruled as played! > I fear you are now misrepresenting the original. In the example that you cite, no indication of rank has been given. It is very uncommon for a player to say "clubs" when following to the club suit. If this does occur, we have a problem, to which I will come back below. Usually in real life, the player will give some incomplete nomination as to the rank of the (club) to be played. At the moment he does this, we can argue that his intention (throuh not having noticed the King) is to play the queen. It is that intention to which the heading of L46B refers. Not the intention to "finesse". I believe that was the case in the original, and I agree with everything that has been said about that case. Now back to your case above, which I deem to be slightly different. In that case, declarer says, in effect, nothing (since the club suit is understood). Now this can have two reasons: he has noticed the king and simply instructs dummy to take the trick, or he hasn't. It is up to the TD to determine which one it is. I find the action so strange that I cannot, from here, tell you what I would do at the table. > Yes I accept this is a situation where players often make UNintentional > plays but my contention is that this is not relevant.The law as written > only allows us to consider intention. > yes, but you are confusing 2 different intentions : the intention to finesse and the intention to play the queen. It is the second one that L46B refers to. > Thank you for your patience in dealing with my ramblings. > We are a very patient lot, us here on blml (those that don't delete every mail by HDw and DWS, that is). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 21:50:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CBmtT01223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:48:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gigi.excite.com (gigi.excite.com [199.172.152.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CBmnH01219 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:48:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from prance.excite.com ([199.172.153.84]) by gigi.excite.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20011012114328.FHEG17391.gigi.excite.com@prance.excite.com>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:43:28 -0700 Message-ID: <23717318.1002887008852.JavaMail.imail@prance.excite.com> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:43:28 -0700 (PDT) From: trevor strickland To: mike amos , "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Excite Australia Inbox X-Sender-Ip: 210.84.86.203 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:22:35 +0100, mike amos wrote: > I have to say that I am with Ton and Richard (almost) here > > 45b tells us that a card is played by naming it Doesn't L45C4(a) say: "A card must be played if a player names OR OTHERWISE DESIGNATES IT ....." ??? Trevor Strickland _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite Australia Visit http://inbox.excite.com.au/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 21:55:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CBtSj01235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:55:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CBtMH01231 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:55:22 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA08179; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:50:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 12 13:47:55 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9EZA22DRM000FZR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:49:33 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:49:37 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:48:50 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card To: "'trevor strickland'" , mike amos , "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:22:35 +0100, mike amos wrote: > > > I have to say that I am with Ton and Richard (almost) here > > > > 45b tells us that a card is played by naming it > > > > Doesn't L45C4(a) say: "A card must be played if a player > names OR OTHERWISE > DESIGNATES IT ....." ??? > YES, ton > > Trevor Strickland > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite Australia > Visit http://inbox.excite.com.au/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 22:03:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CC3PM01262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:03:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CC3GH01248 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:03:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15s0wv-000KTm-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:57:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:19:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes >>From: > >>> When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened >>> a natural 1C out of turn. Director was called and (after my >>> friend's partner refused to accept the BOOT) my friend also >>> elected to open a natural 1C. >>> >>> Director ruled that LHO could overcall 2C as a natural bid >>> despite the fact that 1C-2C was a Michaels cuebid in the >>> opponents' agreements. How would you rule? > > Personally, I read insufficient bids out from the Law book. As has been pointed out to me by my "friends" [???] with some clarity I was not awake when I penned the rubbish which I have now deleted. I also read calls out of turn from the Law book! L31A2: 'When a player has bid out of rotation (and the bid is cancelled, as the option to accept the bid has not been exercised - see Law 29): 'A. RHO's Turn 'When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a convention, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to call, then: '2. RHO Acts 'If that opponent makes a legal bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call; when this call '(a) Repeats Denomination 'repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23). '(b) Does Not Repeat Denomination 'does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply, and (penalty) offender's partner must pass when ever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).' Now the next player has decided not to condone it so the above Law applies. Is 2C legal under the above Law? It is, under [a] or [b], let me come back to which. Can 2C be Michaels? No, general bridge knowledge says that 2C is natural. It is not sensible to make a 2C bid which partner must pass into a convention showing suits. Since the 1C was natural, and the 2C must be natural, L31A2A applies. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 22:03:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CC3VA01263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:03:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CC3JH01252 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:03:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15s0wv-000KTn-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:58:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:27:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card 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 Kooijman, A. writes > >> >> LIZ.BURROWS@xtra.co.nz writes >> >Hi >> >> Hi >> >> >The following sequence of events occured: >> > >> >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; >> >Declarer calls for 'ace'; >> >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; >> >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; >> >Dummy played the ace of trumps; >> >rho followed with a club. >> >> That really seems silly by RHO! >> >> >L47C does not apply as it refers to L45C4b specifically. >> >Neither does L47D as there has been no change of play only a >> clarification of >> >intention. >> >So what happens to the club? >> >> It is played. >> > The defender is >> just very >> silly and has paid the price. >This goes too fast for me, as it might have gone at the table. >When a player next in rotation gets the information that declarer plays the >ace of clubs from dummy and he follows clubs, why is this considered to be >very silly? >What I am saying is that calling for the ace here according to the laws >should be taken as asking for the ace in the suit he played in the previous >trick. You do not think that declarer's different intention is incontrovertible when he points to the card he wants? >So why don't we apply L 45C4b here, where declarer, with the help of dummy, >changes an inadvertent designation? Should a defender be penalized for an >incomplete designation from declarer? Or: is a defender obliged to look at >the table before knowing which card has been played? Nothing in the laws >telling so. Declarer did not change an inadvertent designation: he made an inadvertent designation which, I believe, the TD would have ruled as the club ace. The fact that dummy and I are in agreement as to what the TD would do is nothing more than of mild interest. I actually suggested the defender was silly to play without looking rather than that it was illegal to do so. However, there was an irregularity, and even sillier was the attempt by the players to sort it out themselves without checking to make sure everyone is in agreement. But I still have no sympathy for a defender who hears an incomplete designation, and judges how a TD will rule without either calling the TD or checking up that his opponents agree with his ruling! Anyway, if the TD rules the CA is not played, then RHO has got away with it. But he does not deserve to. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 22:03:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CC3Vx01264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:03:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CC3KH01255 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:03:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15s0wv-00015A-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:58:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:30:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike amos writes >I have to say that I am with Ton and Richard (almost) here > >45b tells us that a card is played by naming it and 46B3 says that Ace names >the same suit as the preceding trick - dummy has placed in the played >position a card not designated by declarer - certainly I shall allow >declarer to change his card if I decide his different intention was >incontrovertible (as in for example pointing at the Ace of trumps) but I >shall not penalise defender for knowing the Laws If you are not going to penalise the defender for knowing the Laws are you going to penalise the defender for not knowing the Laws? If you rule that the club ace is played as I believe the Laws say then the defender should have known that the Law would say so. Well, he does not need to, but *if* he knows the Laws then he knows the bit about incontrovertible and that he cannot assume that ace necessarily means club ace. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 22:16:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CCFWn02012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:15:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9CCFQH02008 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:15:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA05092; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:08:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA12239; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:10:02 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011013140703.00a919b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:09:47 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:09 12/10/2001 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Herman asked: > > > > Before we go any further, is there something we are not > > aware of ? > > > > Richard, all these New Zealand friends of yours, are they > > for real ? > > Or has NZ in Oz the same reputation as Ireland in Britain, > > or Belgium in Holland (ie stupid)? > > > > >Are you sure this is only true for Holland? AG : the same silly stories that are told by MCPs against blondes, by British against Irish, and by French against Belgian, are told in Belgium by Flemish against Walloons and reciprocally. Everybody wants to have his own scapegoats. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 12 22:25:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CCPkq02024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:25:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9CCPeH02020 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:25:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA06808; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:19:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA20396; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:20:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011013141139.00a92440@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:20:02 +0200 To: , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:34 12/10/2001 +1200, LIZ.BURROWS@xtra.co.nz wrote: >Hi > >The following sequence of events occured: > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; > >Dummy played the ace of trumps; > >rho followed with a club. AG : L46 makes it clear that a card is played by naming it, and provides decision rules for incomplete designations. No Law makes provisions for playing a card by using gestures, although some are used (I sometimes use a raised finger for 'high') and I'm fairly sure that, in case of conflict between the designations, the wording has the priority (if I raise a finger and say 'low', I'm deemed to have played low). 'Incontrovertible intention' means exactly what it says, that is, it's impossible to imagine another card having been played (reasonable case : saying 'plum' when reeling off dummy's master plums doens't mean 'a small plum'). Here, declarer has named 'the ace', L46B3a applies, he is deemed to have played CA, RHO has followed suit, WTP ? How can one argue that the *incontrovertible* intention was to play the SA ? The mere fact that RHO thought a Club had been played means that the intention was 'controvertible'. 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 Fri Oct 12 22:28:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CCSYK02037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:28:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CCSSH02033 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:28:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA05446; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:23:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Oct 12 14:21:03 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9F0FWUI86000G13@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:22:31 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:22:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:22:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > As has been pointed out to me by my "friends" [???] with > some clarity > I was not awake when I penned the rubbish which I have now deleted. As you might have noticed by now one really needs to be considered a friend to get such a modest and friendly reply from my side as you got in this case. Didn't I leave open the possibility that I was still asleep myself? These kind of messages helps a lot to get me high on the list of 'producers' of information. We could ask Herman to delete all messages without at least a denomination mentioned in some consistent way (diamonds). ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 13 01:01:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CF0Lw16198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 01:00:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9CF0EH16175 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 01:00:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA02249; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:53:38 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA25451; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:54:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011013165312.00a947d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:54:26 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:22 12/10/2001 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: >As you might have noticed by now one really needs to be considered a friend >to get such a modest and friendly reply from my side as you got in this >case. Didn't I leave open the possibility that I was still asleep myself? >These kind of messages helps a lot to get me high on the list of 'producers' >of information. We could ask Herman to delete all messages without at least >a denomination mentioned in some consistent way (diamonds). AG : am I right in imagining that Diamonds means Delete Immediately All Messages On No determined Subject ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 13 01:51:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CFonk27237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 01:50:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CFohH27216 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 01:50:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15s4Uy-000HhG-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:45:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:59:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <23717318.1002887008852.JavaMail.imail@prance.excite.com> In-Reply-To: <23717318.1002887008852.JavaMail.imail@prance.excite.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk trevor strickland writes >On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:22:35 +0100, mike amos wrote: >> I have to say that I am with Ton and Richard (almost) here >> >> 45b tells us that a card is played by naming it >Doesn't L45C4(a) say: "A card must be played if a player names OR OTHERWISE >DESIGNATES IT ....." ??? Certainly. There is one Law that says how a card is played, and a different Law that states when certain things happen that result in a card being required to be played. But the two things are not the same. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 13 02:43:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CGgX629977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:42:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9CGgRH29973 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:42:28 +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 f9CGaML24511; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:36:28 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:36:00 -0500 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: In-Reply-To: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:34 AM 10/12/01 +1200, LIZ.BURROWS@xtra.co.nz wrote: >Hi > >The following sequence of events occured: > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; OK, the facts as stated say that declarer intended the ace of trumps, and "otherwise designated it as the card he intended to play". Was this act simultaneous to, prior to, or subsequent to the saying of "ace"? >Dummy played the ace of trumps; > >rho followed with a club. RHO clearly followed with a club after dummy has played the ace of trumps? This was definately silly of RHO--I agree with DWS on that! If we say that RHO "knows the laws" then he must surely call the TD before making this play, if he thinks dummy has played the wrong card. At the very least, he should try to get dummy to play the correct card [as he sees it] before following to the trick! >The preamble to L46B seems to apply in that declarer's intention was >incontrovertible. Frankly, I agree. If pointing at a card doesn't indicate declarer's intention, I don't know what would. >L47F says that the club played is may not be withdrawn excepting an >illegal play (revoke) L47B. No, it says that it may not be withdrawn except as provided by L47 _A through E_. >L47C does not apply as it refers to L45C4b specifically. I agree. Unless we rule under L45 that declarer has named the ace of clubs and has then 'without pause for thought' corrected this inadvertant designation by asking for the ace of trumps, we cannot allow the club to be retracted under L47c. If declarer's pointing at the ace of trumps was subsequent to his naming of the 'ace', then we might be able to rule this way. If it was prior or simultaneous, I don't think we can. {This case, I agree, is easier under the Pewick interpretation of L46.} >Neither does L47D as there has been no change of play only a clarification >of intention. Agreed. In fact, if the pointing was simultaneous or prior, I'm not even sure there was a clarification. >So what happens to the club? You have forgotten L47E, which a sympathetic TD willing to twist hard on the lawbook could use, arguing that saying "ace" while pointing to an ace of a different suit constituted "mistaken explanation of a play". I don't think I could twist that hard without pulling a muscle, but I've seen stranger rulings before. :) >Can declarer be penalized for and incorrect designation L46A or has the >defender payed the price for paying insufficient attention to the game? I follow DWS and rule the latter. There's no excuse for seeing dummy play a trump ace and still following suit with a club, especially following an incomplete designation. [Even if declarer had said "play the ace of clubs" RHO should have corrected dummy's "misplay" before following suit.] RHO might be excused for not watching declarer's gesture, but not for not watching declarer's gesture _and_ not paying attention to the card dummy played. >TIA Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 13 03:38:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CHcWe00041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 03:38:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CHcQH00037 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 03:38:27 +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 f9CHWWL20684; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:32:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012113638.00a06050@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:32:07 -0500 To: Ed Reppert From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Cc: "BLML" In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Nota bene problem for Grattan and Ton, et al, below:] At 04:15 PM 10/11/01 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 1:56 PM -0500 10/11/01, Grant Sterling wrote: > > That I formed at one time an intention to drive carefully > >doesn't entail that I didn't also intend to drive at a certain > >[too close] distance from your car, etc. I am quite capable > >[unfortunately] of forming specific intentions that contradict > >my earlier general intentions. And I am also capable, > >unfortunately, of forgetting my good intentions at the moment > >of action without actually reformulating them. [I.e., I don't > >consciously formulate an intention to drive unsafely, but I > >no longer act on my intention to drive safely.] > >Forgive me if I rehash some things already brought up in this thread, >but I want to try to make sure I don't miss anything. :-) You are forgiven. :) >This argument, if I understand it, says essentially that action is >equivalent to intent. In other words, what one does is always a >result of intent. If that were true, there would be no law on the >books regarding "involuntary manslaughter." No, I think there are levels of intention, and that there are different moments of intention. "Involuntary manslaughter" covers cases where a person killed someone without intending to kill them. However, in such cases the person almost always intended to do _something_. "I intended to hit him, but not to kill him". "I was only trying to scare him with the gun". "I was driving fast to try to get to work on time and didn't see the pedestrian". By the same token, I agree that this declarer did not intend to play the Q under the K. His intention was only to play the Q--he hadn't processed the information that there was a K on the table at all, just as someone may pull the trigger on a gun without realizing that it was loaded or drive a car fast without seeing a pedestrian. Unfortunately, the result is that declarer's Q will be slaughtered by LHO's K. _That_ wasn't what declarer intended, but it is the result of something declarer did intend, namely the playing of the Q. Now one will not be convicted of anything at all if one didn't intend _anything_ that led to the death. If, for example, I am a construction worker hitting something with a hammer and the end of the hammer breaks off, flies through the air, and fatally injures someone, I won't be charged with anything at all. And if you can convince me that declarer, when he said "club" or even when he said "queen" _was incontrovertibly attempting to name the ace_, then I will rule the ace has been played. I strongly doubt you will be able to do this, especially if he said "queen", but if you can I will so rule. >Duplicate Decisions argues that declarer's change of call "must not >be allowed" because "his first designation was not inadvertent". I >don't buy this argument either. > >Declarer's intention was to finesse-that is, to play the queen if Declarer's original intention, at the moment he played a card _from his hand_, was to finesse. That is both obvious and irrelevant. >LHO >played low, and to play the ace if LHO played the king. LHO played >the king, and declarer carelessly called for the queen. This *is* an >inadvertent call, whatever Duplicate Decisions claims. Inadvertent >means _At the instant when declarer said the word "queen" or the word "club"_, what card was he intending to play to that trick? a) He wasn't intending to play any card at all. b) He was intending to play the Q because he hadn't processed the play of the K. c) He was intending to play the A. I can't see any other option, and of the three I'm offered 'b' seems the obvious one. Surely you cannot maintain that he wasn't trying to play any card at all? Surely you cannot say that because he once had intended to play the ace, _at this moment_ he tried to play the ace by saying "queen" or "club"? At this moment he was intending to play the Q. >1. resulting from carelessness: done unintentionally or without thinking >2. careless: failing to pay enough attention or take enough care This isn't what inadvertant means in bridge law. For examples: I have a strong opener and partner supports my suit. I bid 4NT to ask for aces, even though I have two fast losers in a side suit and partner is fully capable of cooperating in a control-showing auction. My 4NT bid was the result of failure to take care and pay attention, but it was not inadvertant--I cannot correct it and show an ace instead. I'm setting up a squeeze, but I cash a key winner before remembering that I needed to lose a trick to retify the count. That was clearly my original intention, but I forgot it as I was playing the tricks. I surely cannot say "When I said 'play the ace of diamonds from dummy', I was really intending to play a low heart to rectify the count instead, because that's what I was going to do at this trick originally." >Clearly, the call of the queen was inadvertent, by either meaning of >the word. Law 45C(b) then allows declarer to change it, if he does so >"without pause for thought". So the question is: does noticing that >LHO played the king involve "pause for thought"? I think so. If it >does, then declarer cannot change his call under 45C, *even though* >it was inadvertent. > >Now turn to 46B. "The following restrictions apply (except when >declarer's different intention was incontrovertible)". Did declarer >intend to finesse? Clearly he did. Is there any evidence that he >changed his mind and really *intended* to play the queen under the >king? Clearly not. "Incontrovertible" means "undeniable: certain, >undeniable, and not open to question". It seems clear that declarer's >intention to finesse *is* in fact incontrovertible. To say that his >intent must have changed because his action changed (ie, because he >wasn't paying attention, or had a momentary "disconnect" of some kind >between his brain and his mouth) is preposterous. Therefore, the Those are two totally different scenarios. If you can convince me that his brain was really saying "play the ace" but the word "queen" or "club" somehow came out instead, then I'll say the ace was played. [It will be hard to give me incontrovertible proof, but if you did it would fulfill the law.] If he wasn't paying attention to the K, and said "Q" or "club" intending to play the Q, then tough luck. >restrictions of 46B *do not apply* to this situation, and we're back >to 45C. And as I say above, it seems to me the argument now boils This is the Pewick interpretation--if declarer's intent is incontrovertible, then we go to L45. DWS doesn't accept that interpretation, and neither do I, but I acknowledge that there are some good reasons for holding it. I would like Grattan or Ton, et al, to comment on this. Does a different incontrovertible intent per L46b take us to L45c4b, or does an incontrovertible intent to play, say, the Ace of diamonds mean that the ace of diamonds is considered played regardless of 'pause for thought'? I.e, is the parenthetical comment intended as a self-contained law, or is it intended to mean "in this case L46 doesn't apply and L45 applies instead"? Was it the intention of the lawmakers [_at the moment when they wrote this law_ :)] to imply that if I play card X while incontrovertibly intending card Y, that the play of X is inadvertent, or that the play of X is void? >down to whether noticing the king was played involves "pause for >thought". As I believe it does, I would rule the queen is played. If >someone can convince me it doesn't, I'd be happy to change the >ruling, but arguing that his intent changed won't do the job. I agree, in this case, FWIW. There was a pause for thought between the realization that he had designated the Q and the attempt to change the designation. [This is very different from the case where declarer means to play a card from one suit, sees an opponent follow to a different suit, and realizes that he has accidentally designated that suit. In that case, seeing the card does not count as a pause for thought, because the recognition of what declarer has called for doesn't come until after he sees the card. In this case, declarer must have known he called for the Q when he says "Q", and seeing the K makes him want to change his mind. So there was a pause for thought. This also, IMHO, means that the call of the Q wasn't inadvertent in the first place, but I've argued that above.] >Regards, > >Ed Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 13 08:52:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9CMp4k00199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:51:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe28.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9CMovH00194 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:50:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:45:36 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [4.54.104.238] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:44:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2001 22:45:36.0414 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BD753E0:01C1536F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 5:19 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem | David Stevenson writes | >>From: | > | >>> When another New Zealand friend was dealer, his LHO opened | >>> a natural 1C out of turn. Director was called and (after my | >>> friend's partner refused to accept the BOOT) my friend also | >>> elected to open a natural 1C. | >>> | >>> Director ruled that LHO could overcall 2C as a natural bid | >>> despite the fact that 1C-2C was a Michaels cuebid in the | >>> opponents' agreements. How would you rule? | > | > Personally, I read insufficient bids out from the Law book. | | As has been pointed out to me by my "friends" [???] with some clarity | I was not awake when I penned the rubbish which I have now deleted. | | I also read calls out of turn from the Law book! | | L31A2: | | 'When a player has bid out of rotation (and the bid is cancelled, as the | option to accept the bid has not been exercised - see Law 29): | | 'A. RHO's Turn | 'When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a | convention, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to | call, then: | | '2. RHO Acts | 'If that opponent makes a legal bid, double or redouble, offender may | make any legal call; when this call | | '(a) Repeats Denomination | 'repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, (penalty) | offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law | 23). | | '(b) Does Not Repeat Denomination | 'does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, the lead | penalties of Law 26 may apply, and (penalty) offender's partner must | pass when ever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).' | | | Now the next player has decided not to condone it so the above Law | applies. Is 2C legal under the above Law? It is, under [a] or [b], let | me come back to which. Can 2C be Michaels? No, general bridge | knowledge says that 2C is natural. It is not sensible to make a 2C bid | which partner must pass into a convention showing suits. | | Since the 1C was natural, and the 2C must be natural, L31A2A applies. For a partnership that has agreed to Michael's cuebids I should like to consider the auction 1C-2C* where the partner knows it would most likely be a bad move to respond 2S [or compete to 3S] holding Qxx-xx-KJxx-Qxxx only because of partner's infraction on the way to 2C [*1C OOT was cancelled]. In other words, the only way for offender to bid clubs naturally in an infraction free auction would be by starting at the 3 level or passing the first time around. Surely you see that via the infraction the offender has been able to supply his partner with the information: that he couldn't wait to open the bidding with a possible 3[?]-card suit, and overcall clubs, without having to risk contracting for at least nine tricks [by bidding for eight]. Thereby giving partner information that might, and probably will, prove useful when he is permitted to call at the second rotation but information not available any other way. At least this is the way the thread is going. regards roger pewick | David Stevenson Liverpool, England, 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 Oct 13 11:54:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9D1reX04465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:53:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9D1rXH04461 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:53:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-48-249.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.48.249] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15sDuP-0009ir-00; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:48:14 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c15389$96fa5e20$f9307bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Grant Sterling" Cc: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu><5.1.0.14.1.20011011133500.00a11e00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011012113638.00a06050@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 02:48:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Ed Reppert Cc: BLML Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 6:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 46B > [Nota bene problem for Grattan and Ton, et al, below:] > .+=+ That should get you several different answers. :-) +=+ > > I would like Grattan or Ton, et al, to comment on this. > Does a different incontrovertible intent per L46b take us to > L45c4b, or does an incontrovertible intent to play, say, the > Ace of diamonds mean that the ace of diamonds is considered > played regardless of 'pause for thought'? I.e, is the > parenthetical comment intended as a self-contained law, or > is it intended to mean "in this case L46 doesn't apply and > L45 applies instead"? Was it the intention of the lawmakers > [_at the moment when they wrote this law_ :)] to imply that > if I play card X while incontrovertibly intending card Y, > that the play of X is inadvertent, or that the play of X > is void? > +=+ Law 46B tells the Director how he shall interpret a call which fails to comply with the requirement in 46A. If the Director is satisfied that Declarer intended incontrovertibly (unquestionably, irrefutably, indisputably) to play a card other than the one to which 46B otherwise points, the requirement to play the latter is removed and the Director allows the play of the card which was incontrovertibly intended. This law makes no mention of inadvertence or pauses for thought; it is to do with the interpretation of an instruction that fails to name both the suit and the rank of the card called from dummy. Incontrovertibility is an absolute standard; the Director must be satisfied the standard is met. If met, it conditions the interpretation of the call; this does not constitute a change of call, the law is about defining what card was actually called for. Law 45 deals with the situation where a declarer seeks to change the card that he has instructed dummy to play. If he calls for 'Queen' a change of that call is only allowed if the conditions in 45C4(b) are met. There is no interpretation required as to what card he has called for. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 13 14:56:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9D4tNF29296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:55:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9D4tIH29292 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:55:18 +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 f9D4o1w09891 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:50:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:45:01 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" > There's no excuse > for seeing dummy play a trump ace and still following suit with > a club, especially following an incomplete designation. > [Even if declarer had said "play the ace of clubs" RHO > should have corrected dummy's "misplay" before following > suit.] RHO might be excused for not watching declarer's > gesture, but not for not watching declarer's gesture _and_ > not paying attention to the card dummy played. > The original post also referred to a card as having been played by dummy. That's loose language, common but not in accordance with the wording of the Laws. Dummy does not play the dummy's cards, declarer plays them. A card put in the played position by dummy is not a played card unless declarer has named or otherwise designated it. Once that is done, the next hand is not obliged to ensure that dummy has followed declarer's instruction. We frequently play before dummy has a chance to even touch the played card. That's not a play out of turn, as declarer has played the card by naming or otherwise designating it. L45C4(b) says "a card must be played if a player names it or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play," I read that as an exclusive "or" (xor). That is, if he hasn't named it but has otherwise designated it, then the designation stands. Once he has named it, no gestures or other "designations" count for anything. However, if he clearly designates it, then it must be played even though he follows the designation by naming a different card. Whichever comes first governs. Example: Declarer says "low" when playing from dummy to a diamond lead and also says "ace." Assuming inadvertency isn't involved, whichever action came first determines which card is played, and the other action means nothing. In this case if declarer clearly designated the apade ace before saying "ace," then the designation prevails, spade ace played. If not clear, or the spade ace was designated subsequent to saying "ace," then the ace of clubs is played. The original post did not make clear which action came first. If they were simultaneous, then L45B should govern ("Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card"). There is no "otherwise designating" in L45B. An oral naming of the card is the proper procedure, so otherwise designating it does not have equal standing when there is a conflict. 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 Oct 13 18:11:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9D87Wj00311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:07:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9D87QH00307 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:07:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-182.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.182]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9D825B26596 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:02:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BC6C5E0.17601EAC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:28:48 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > Herman asked: > > > > Before we go any further, is there something we are not > > aware of ? > > > > Richard, all these New Zealand friends of yours, are they > > for real ? > > Or has NZ in Oz the same reputation as Ireland in Britain, > > or Belgium in Holland (ie stupid)? > > > > Are you sure this is only true for Holland? > > ton Actually we have the same reputation in France. One of the better jokes to come after sep 11 was the one in a french newspaper : a cartoon showing an ultralight motorised plane approaching the Eiffel tower with the caption "Belgian terrorist attacks France". I'm sure that like many, we don't really mind jokes about our nationalities, as long as they are funny and good humoured. Back to our friends down under now ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 00:32:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DEV2U04437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 00:31:02 +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 f9DEUuH04418 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 00:30:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-213.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.213]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AD2D62EEF for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:25:36 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:19:00 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson writes: > The defender is just very > silly and has paid the price. and again... > Anyway, if the TD rules the CA is not played, then RHO has got away > with it. But he does not deserve to. This seems to me an incredibly harsh attitude. The correct form for designating a card from dummy is set out in L46. Declarer has not followed it and is responsible for the confusion that followed. L46B3(b) applies and the CA is deemed to have been played unless declarer can convince the TD that this was incontrovertibly not his intention. Meanwhile, while it may be reasonable for dummy to deduce partner's "incontrovertible different intention" from a pointing finger, nevertheless (technically) he has misplayed. You seem to have assumed that RHO deliberately played a club *after* he had seen dummy play a different A. ISTM much more likely that he heard declarer call "Ace", assumed this meant CA and played a club before noticing that dummy had played a different Ace. To what extent RHO knows the rules is irrelevant. If he assumes here that, absent a contrary TD ruling, "Ace"means "Club Ace", *we know* that this is right and I for one would not dream of penalising his assumption. His card "may be withdrawn (without penalty)" under L45D and declarer should be warned to be more careful in future designations. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 04:26:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DIPqE08372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:25:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9DIPhH08368 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:25:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9DIJFF10444 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:19:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >dummy has placed in the played >position a card not designated by declarer Declarer designated the ace of trumps by pointing at it. If the laws don't cover that possibility, the laws are at fault, not declarer, and certainly not dummy, who did exactly what declarer told him to do. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8iF672UW3au93vOEQKHfACfVtsARflAswJoWSJdHsFDfcw5JLAAoNhj CT0tPNIoG+jh4BqZtB834Myx =9evt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 04:45:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DIjh408390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:45:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9DIjbH08386 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:45:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9DIeAh19798; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:40:11 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011013141139.00a92440@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011013141139.00a92440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:37:11 -0400 To: Alain Gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:20 PM +0200 10/13/01, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >How can one argue that the *incontrovertible* intention was to play the SA ? Simple. He *pointed* at the SA. >The mere fact that RHO thought a Club had been played means that the >intention was 'controvertible'. Nonsense. It means RHO wasn't paying attention. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8iKk72UW3au93vOEQL9wQCggCPoT1mNhy79oT4ywQukpEcCl4YAoM7W 4dz3R3eHWHBraoFknSoK5OoW =xQSJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 05:56:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DJuFs08418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:56:15 +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 f9DJu8H08414 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:56:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-85-210.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.85.210] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15sUo3-000CfQ-00; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 20:50:48 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c15420$d2a686a0$d255063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "bridge-laws" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011013141139.00a92440@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:37:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > Here, declarer has named 'the ace', L46B3a > applies, he is deemed to have played CA, RHO > has followed suit, WTP ? How can one argue > that the *incontrovertible* intention was to >play the SA ? > +=+ More importantly, WHY should one argue about incontrovertibility? If the facts here, as you say, are ruled in accordance with 46B3, the reference to incontrovertibilty being in 46B2 it does not apply to 46B3. RHO's play to the trick may simply reflect knowledge of this section of the laws. There is, however, a 45C4(a) question: the Director may rule that Declarer has designated a suit by pointing to it if this was clear enough. He has acted by naming a rank and otherwise designating a suit and the card to be put in the played position is then precisely defined. From what I read this seems the likely decision. RHO has then simply followed with a club to a spade lead. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 06:12:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DKBmc08440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:11:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9DKBfH08436 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:11:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-76-243.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.76.243] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15sV38-000FGV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:06:22 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c15422$ffdbca20$d255063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:09:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; bridge-laws ; Alain Gottcheiner Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Oh! let us never, never doubt > What nobody is sure about!" > [Hilaire Belloc] > + + + + + + + + + + + > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Alain Gottcheiner > To: ; > > Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 1:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > > > Here, declarer has named 'the ace', L46B3a > > applies, he is deemed to have played CA, RHO > > has followed suit, WTP ? How can one argue > > that the *incontrovertible* intention was to > >play the SA ? > > > +=+ More importantly, WHY should one argue > about incontrovertibility? If the facts here, as you > say, are ruled in accordance with 46B3, the > reference to incontrovertibilty being in 46B2 it > does not apply to 46B3. > +=+ I retract this. Misread the book ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 06:18:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DKI7008452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:18:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9DKI1H08448 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:18:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-87-174.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.87.174] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15sV9E-000Fhj-00; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:12:41 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:14:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 7:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >dummy has placed in the played > >position a card not designated by declarer > > Declarer designated the ace of trumps by > pointing at it. If the laws don't cover that > possibility, the laws are at fault, not declarer, > and certainly not dummy, who did exactly > what declarer told him to do. > +=+ This is the point I was making when I so rudely interrupted myself. If, as I understand, declarer said 'Ace' and pointed clearly to the Spades, he has played the spade Ace. The suit is 'otherwise designated' per 45C4(a). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 06:36:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DKZgU08790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:35:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9DKZVH08756 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 06:35:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-42-198.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.42.198] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15sVQ8-000JpS-00; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:30:09 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c15426$51f844c0$c62a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:32:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 3:19 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card > > David Stevenson writes: > > > The defender is just very > > silly and has paid the price. > > and again... > > > Anyway, if the TD rules the CA is not played, > > then RHO has got away with it. But he does > > not deserve to. > > This seems to me an incredibly harsh attitude. > > The correct form for designating a card from > dummy is set out in L46. Declarer has not > followed it and is responsible for the confusion > that followed > +=+ We only have recourse to Law 46 when declarer has not defined clearly which card he has played from dummy. Whilst 46A does state the correct procedure for calling a card from dummy, before we get to that stage Law 45C4(a) allows that a card may be 'otherwise designated' than by naming it. If this is done unmistakably in the opinion of the Director he will rule that the designated card is played. Law 46 will not then enter into it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 07:07:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DL6fA17133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:06:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9DL6ZH17103 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA26999 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00879 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:01:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110132101.RAA00879@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > declarer said 'Ace' and pointed clearly to the > Spades, he has played the spade Ace. The > suit is 'otherwise designated' per 45C4(a). Well, yes, but this is only part of the question. The other is what is East's position. As Grattan told us earlier, the first step is to look at L46. We first find that declarer has committed an infraction of L46A ("should"). Second, the TD has a judgment decision to make. Declarer's words would normally designate the C-A (per L46B3a), but the TD may well judge that "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible." As Grattan says, on the facts presented, this seems quite likely, so assume this is how the TD rules. (If not, the C-A is played, East has followed suit, and play continues; no problem.) As regards East's play, the TD now has a second judgment decision to make. I cannot find anything in the Laws requiring East to watch declarer's gestures or even keep his eyes open (except L7B1, which doesn't apply here). The most likely possibility is that East has heard declarer (apparently) designate the ace of clubs and has (he thought) followed suit. If this is the situation, it is far from obvious what East has done wrong. It was, apparently, declarer's infraction that led East astray. On the other hand, it is possible that East has seen and understood declarer's gesture and played a club anyway or was paying so little attention to the game that he missed what should have been completely obvious. In the latter case, there is again no problem: either the club is a legal play, or it is a revoke, and we know how to deal with both of those. (In most Zones, don't forget L61B if West was the first to call attention to the club play.) So what happens if the TD judges that East was misled by declarer's infraction? I think the simplest possibility is 47E2, in which case the club play can be changed and is AI for EW, UI for South. If you don't like that, maybe this is a time for the TD to "designate otherwise" under L50. (I think the club then becomes UI for West, AI for South. Do others agree? This seems wrong because it was South's infraction that caused the problem.) Or there is always L12A1, but it seems a shame to assign an adjusted score when it must be possible to play the hand out. All in all, 47E2 looks best to me. We have exactly the analogous situation in the auction, where after a L25A change of call, we allow the next player to change his own call if necessary under L21B1. The main point is that the TD has two judgment decisions to make: was declarer's designation of the spade A "incontrovertible," and if so, should East reasonably have been aware that was the card declarer intended? Obviously the TD has to investigate the facts before making his decisions. One final note: L72B1 might possibly come into play. If East "could have known" that showing East a club was the key to the defense, be prepared to give an adjusted score. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 07:11:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DLBPJ18475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:11:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9DLBJH18450 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:11:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA27068 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA00952 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110132106.RAA00952@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ We only have recourse to Law 46 when > declarer has not defined clearly which card he has > played from dummy. Grattan: I thought earlier you said that we first go to L46 to find out what card declarer has designated, then if necessary consult L45 to see whether it may be changed. Was it someone else who said that? In any case, I don't see an alternative. L45C tells us that the designated card must be played, but it doesn't tell us how to decide whether a card has been designated. We need L46 for that. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 14 08:32:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9DMVnh27479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:31:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9DMVhH27457 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:31:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-15-207.easynet.co.uk [212.134.26.207]) by chalfont.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C1DC1D527A for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:26:22 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Roger Pewick writes >> "Brambledown" writes >>> David Stevenson writes: >>> The defender is just very >>> silly and has paid the price. >> and again... >>> Anyway, if the TD rules the CA is not played, then RHO has got away >>> with it. But he does not deserve to. >> This seems to me an incredibly harsh attitude. >> The correct form for designating a card from dummy is set out in L46. > It seems to me that the last time I looked it was L45 that gave the procedure referenced L46A says: "Proper form for Designating Dummy's Card When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." ISTM this should logically be part of L45 not L46, but whether or not it is in the right place, it defines the correct procedure very clearly. It uses "should", and the introduction (Scope and Interpretation) tells us that "failure to do it is an infraction of Law". Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 17:45:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9E7iK409205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:44:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9E7iDH09172 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:44:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-43.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.43]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6452336EB2; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:38:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Brambledown" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:30:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >+=+ We only have recourse to Law 46 when >declarer has not defined clearly which card he has >played from dummy. Whilst 46A does state the >correct procedure for calling a card from dummy, >before we get to that stage Law 45C4(a) allows >that a card may be 'otherwise designated' than by >naming it. If this is done unmistakably in the >opinion of the Director he will rule that the >designated card is played. Law 46 will not then >enter into it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This seems the right summing up from a legal point of view. Now we need to instruct the TD what to do in this case. Declarer won a trick in dummy with a club and says 'ace' of which there are still two in dummy one being the club ace. RHO plays a club to this spoken 'ace'. But it appears that declarer wanted to play the other (spade) ace and he tells that he did point to the other ace and that dummy did touch and moved the spade ace. Now the TD has to decide what to do. My view is that it is posible that declarer wanted to play the spade ace. We need to be at the table to decide about that. I have to say that the description in which he asked for an ace and at the same moment pointed to the spade ace sounds typical to me. We do not play like that. It is more likely that seeing the club followed by RHO declarer understood the confusion and then pointed to the spade ace as the one to be played. But it is not that important. And you need to find those facts at the table (but I have some experience and instinct). If the TD decides that declarer wanted to play the spade ace from the beginning, he still should allow RHO to change his played card without penalty, using 45C4b. Then the TD interprets saying 'ace' (which in itself means club ace) and therewith pointing to the spade ace as the change of an inadvertent designation of a card. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 21:01:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EAxmt14839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:59:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9EAxfH14835 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:59:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-72-27.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.72.27] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15siuQ-0009Wy-00; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:54:19 +0100 Message-ID: <001601c1549f$0c163600$1b48063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" , "Brambledown" , "Ton Kooijman" Cc: References: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:38:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Brambledown ; BLML Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 8:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > >> > >+=+ We only have recourse to Law 46 when > >declarer has not defined clearly which card he has > >played from dummy. Whilst 46A does state the > >correct procedure for calling a card from dummy, > >before we get to that stage Law 45C4(a) allows > >that a card may be 'otherwise designated' than by > >naming it. If this is done unmistakably in the > >opinion of the Director he will rule that the > >designated card is played. Law 46 will not then > >enter into it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > This seems the right summing up from a legal > point of view. Now we need to instruct the TD > what to do in this case. > Declarer won a trick in dummy with a club and > says 'ace' of which there are still two in dummy > one being the club ace. RHO plays a club to this > spoken 'ace'. But it appears that declarer wanted > to play the other (spade) ace and he tells that he > did point to the other ace and that dummy did > touch and moved the spade ace. > +=+ ton and I are in blessed agreement. As I read the original description from Liz Burrows it seemed the spoken 'ace' and the pointing to the spades were simultaneous acts. The Director needs to be careful in ascertaining the facts. If the pointing was before RHO played, and was unmistakably clear, we have a difficulty in interpreting Law 47 to allow RHO to retract his card without penalty. If the pointing was unclear I think we can manage to give both players the benefit of 45C4(b). Where RHO has misunderstood, an inclination of the Director to the latter view would, I think, have our sympathy. I write with some experience. One of my early major partners would quite often point to a suit and name a card, or say nothing but point to a card. This was to 'otherwise designate', which phrase has existed in the laws since these earlier times (1953-65). Never once did a question arise as to which card he had played. The Ancient Scribes should perhaps be given credit for an awareness of the foibles of players. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 21:13:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EBD6h14864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:13:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9EBCxH14856 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:13:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15sj7D-0000dK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:07:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:38:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >For a partnership that has agreed to Michael's cuebids I should like >to consider the auction 1C-2C* where the partner knows it would most >likely be a bad move to respond 2S [or compete to 3S] holding >Qxx-xx-KJxx-Qxxx only because of partner's infraction on the way to 2C >[*1C OOT was cancelled]. In other words, the only way for offender to >bid clubs naturally in an infraction free auction would be by starting >at the 3 level or passing the first time around. > >Surely you see that via the infraction the offender has been able to >supply his partner with the information: that he couldn't wait to >open the bidding with a possible 3[?]-card suit, and overcall clubs, >without having to risk contracting for at least nine tricks [by >bidding for eight]. Thereby giving partner information that might, >and probably will, prove useful when he is permitted to call at the >second rotation but information not available any other way. > >At least this is the way the thread is going. I am not doubting that there are problems in allowing 2C to be natural. I merely think that it is clear that we do allow it. I do not believe that we can force a pair to play a 2C which will be passed this round as anything but natural. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 21:13:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EBDFi14871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:13:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9EBD4H14862 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:13:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15sj7D-0008Te-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:07:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:49:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Grant Sterling" > >> There's no excuse >> for seeing dummy play a trump ace and still following suit with >> a club, especially following an incomplete designation. >> [Even if declarer had said "play the ace of clubs" RHO >> should have corrected dummy's "misplay" before following >> suit.] RHO might be excused for not watching declarer's >> gesture, but not for not watching declarer's gesture _and_ >> not paying attention to the card dummy played. >> >The original post also referred to a card as having been played by dummy. >That's loose language, common but not in accordance with the wording of the >Laws. Dummy does not play the dummy's cards, declarer plays them. A card >put in the played position by dummy is not a played card unless declarer >has named or otherwise designated it. > >Once that is done, the next hand is not obliged to ensure that dummy has >followed declarer's instruction. We frequently play before dummy has a >chance to even touch the played card. That's not a play out of turn, as >declarer has played the card by naming or otherwise designating it. The jury is still out on this: we have discussed it before, but not come to an agreement. The Law says that a card is played by two things: [1] declarer names it: [2] dummy moves it. One school of thought is that a card has not been played until both have happened. >L45C4(b) says "a card must be played if a player names it or otherwise >designates it as the card he proposes to play," I read that as an exclusive >"or" (xor). That is, if he hasn't named it but has otherwise designated it, >then the designation stands. Once he has named it, no gestures or other >"designations" count for anything. However, if he clearly designates it, >then it must be played even though he follows the designation by naming a >different card. Whichever comes first governs. Sure. But the trouble with this case is that the designation is incomplete, and when you have an incomplete designation you need to use the incomplete designation Law, L46B, to decide which card has been designated. >Example: Declarer says "low" when playing from dummy to a diamond lead and >also says "ace." Assuming inadvertency isn't involved, whichever action came >first determines which card is played, and the other action means nothing. > >In this case if declarer clearly designated the apade ace before saying >"ace," then the designation prevails, spade ace played. If not clear, or the >spade ace was designated subsequent to saying "ace," then the ace of clubs >is played. No, not so. You are ducking the issue. If declarer had said "Ace of clubs, no wait a moment, let's have the ace of spades" then we would either permit a change under L45C4B or we wouldn't. But that is not what happened here. Here we had an incomplete designation, and we have to rule on what card that referred to. No question of changing anything. You cannot duck that, you cannot ignore L46B. >The original post did not make clear which action came first. If they were >simultaneous, then L45B should govern ("Declarer plays a card from dummy by >naming the card"). There is no "otherwise designating" in L45B. An oral >naming of the card is the proper procedure, so otherwise designating it does >not have equal standing when there is a conflict. There is no conflict with otherwise designating: it is just that there was no complete designation, so then other evidence comes in to play in making a judgement ruling under L46B. Part of L46B is the decision as to whether "declarer's different intention is incontrovertible" and we are allowed to use all available evidence [including pointing at cards] in our determination. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 21:13:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EBDGh14872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:13:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9EBD5H14863 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:13:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15sj7G-0000dR-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:07:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:51:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: <3BC6C5E0.17601EAC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3BC6C5E0.17601EAC@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >"Kooijman, A." wrote: >> >> Herman asked: >> > >> > Before we go any further, is there something we are not >> > aware of ? >> > >> > Richard, all these New Zealand friends of yours, are they >> > for real ? >> > Or has NZ in Oz the same reputation as Ireland in Britain, >> > or Belgium in Holland (ie stupid)? >> > >> >> Are you sure this is only true for Holland? >> >> ton > >Actually we have the same reputation in France. > >One of the better jokes to come after sep 11 was the one in >a french newspaper : a cartoon showing an ultralight >motorised plane approaching the Eiffel tower with the >caption "Belgian terrorist attacks France". > >I'm sure that like many, we don't really mind jokes about >our nationalities, as long as they are funny and good >humoured. > >Back to our friends down under now ... I am not prepared to post it on this list, but in similar vein I have received an Irish joke descended from Sep 11 [yes, I shall email it on request]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 22:54:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ECqCB18738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:52:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9ECq6H18734 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:52:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-120-137-103.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.120.137.103] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15skfF-000Dnt-00; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 13:46:45 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c154ae$c1799d20$1b48063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , "bridge-laws" References: <200110132106.RAA00952@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 13:49:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ We only have recourse to Law 46 when > > declarer has not defined clearly which card he has > > played from dummy. > > Grattan: > I thought earlier you said that we first go to > L46 to find out what card declarer has > designated, then if necessary consult L45 to > see whether it may be changed. Was it > someone else who said that? In any case, I > don't see an alternative. L45C tells us that > the designated card must be played, but it > doesn't tell us how to decide whether a card > has been designated. We need L46 for that. > -- +=+ I do not believe I said this. If I have been unclear I apologise. If it is clear under Law 45 what card has been called there is nothing incomplete or erroneous for Law 46 to resolve. If it is not clear then Law 46 hopefully will provide an answer. Law 45 clearly allows of a card being 'otherwise designated' and it is for the Director to judge whether this has been done. In the case in point, my view is that declarer unquestionably intended to call the Ace of Trumps; his naming and pointing together leave nothing incomplete about his call. If he were adjudged by the Director to have inadvertently called the Ace Clubs, he has acted quickly enough, in my opinion, to satisfy Law 45C4(b). On this, see ton's message and my reaction just recently to it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 14 22:55:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ECsXc18750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:54:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f10.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9ECsSH18746 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:54:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 05:49:03 -0700 Received: from 24.28.112.99 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 12:49:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.28.112.99] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 07:49:03 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2001 12:49:03.0805 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A9C1ED0:01C154AE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk



>From: "Brambledown"
>To: "BLML"
>Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card
>Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:19:46 +0100
>
> > Roger Pewick writes
>
> >> "Brambledown" writes
>
> >>> David Stevenson writes:
> >>> The defender is just very
> >>> silly and has paid the price.
>
> >> and again...
>
> >>> Anyway, if the TD rules the CA is not played, then RHO has got away
> >>> with it. But he does not deserve to.
>
> >> This seems to me an incredibly harsh attitude.
>
> >> The correct form for designating a card from dummy is set out in L46.
>
> > It seems to me that the last time I looked it was L45 that gave the
>procedure referenced
>
>L46A says:
>
>"Proper form for Designating Dummy's Card
>When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state
>both the suit and the rank of the desired card."
>
>ISTM this should logically be part of L45 not L46, but whether or not it is
>in the right place, it defines the correct procedure very clearly. It uses
>"should", and the introduction (Scope and Interpretation) tells us that
>"failure to do it is an infraction of Law".
>
>Chas Fellows (Brambledown)

mea culpa.

 

roger pewick

 


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 06:14:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EKDX507910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:13:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9EKDRH07906 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:13:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15srYE-0007jI-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:08:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:01:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The NOs [N/S] were in 5D, which goes two down doubled for NS-300. However, there was an infraction, and their opponents reached 5S because of it, which should go one down for NS+100. Unfortunately there was a defensive effort [perhaps a revoke?] which was bad enough to qualify as irrational, wild or gambling action: let us say it was irrational. As a result 5S made for a table result of NS- 650. So what score do we assign to each side? Please assume this occurred in Europe in an event where the Code of Practice applies but not in England or Wales. To save you the trouble of looking it up the relevant paragraph of the CoP reads: 'If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke.' Another slightly different example: the Os bid 6H because of an infraction, when they would have stopped in 5H otherwise. The defence committed an irrational defence to let it through. What scores do we assign? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 06:14:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EKDJb07904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:13:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9EKDDH07900 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15srY4-000Pli-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:07:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 13:10:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brambledown writes >> David Stevenson writes: > >> The defender is just very >> silly and has paid the price. > >and again... > >> Anyway, if the TD rules the CA is not played, then RHO has got away >> with it. But he does not deserve to. > >This seems to me an incredibly harsh attitude. If people are going to do things which are generally perceived as pretty stupid then I am going to believe them pretty stupid. >The correct form for designating a card from dummy is set out in L46. >Declarer has not followed it and is responsible for the confusion that >followed. Only in part. When your opponent does something wrong you have various methods of redress. ignoring all those methods of redress, making your mind up as to what would happen, and getting it wrong makes you partially responsible for the confusion. > L46B3(b) applies and the CA is deemed to have been played unless >declarer can convince the TD that this was incontrovertibly not his >intention. Meanwhile, while it may be reasonable for dummy to deduce >partner's "incontrovertible different intention" from a pointing finger, >nevertheless (technically) he has misplayed. > >You seem to have assumed that RHO deliberately played a club *after* he had >seen dummy play a different A. I tend to say what I mean, and I dislike intensely people putting totally different words into my mouth. If I had meant what you said I meant then I would have said so. RHO just did something pretty silly. > ISTM much more likely that he heard >declarer call "Ace", assumed this meant CA and played a club before noticing >that dummy had played a different Ace. Exactly. Very silly. > To what extent RHO knows the rules >is irrelevant. If he assumes here that, absent a contrary TD ruling, >"Ace"means "Club Ace", *we know* that this is right and I for one would not >dream of penalising his assumption. If he knows that the ace means the club ace except when it does not then he is totally crazy to assume it means the club ace without checking. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 09:11:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9EN9fr17575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:09:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9EN9aH17571 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA23558 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:13:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:51:00 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: riszko@xtra.co.nz Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:57:18 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/10/2001 08:56:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael enquired: >Before we go any further, is there something we are not >aware of ? > >Richard, all these New Zealand friends of yours, are they >for real ? >Or has NZ in Oz the same reputation as Ireland in Britain, >or Belgium in Holland (ie stupid)? > >But of course, if immi.gov.au means what I think it does, we >cannot accuse Richard of bias against foreigners, can we ? > >Sorry, Richard ! ;-) Two of my Canberra bridge friends recently returned to New Zealand, so are for real (except in their hand evaluations). However, attached is a joke poking fun not only at New Zealand, but also at the Australian Department of Immigration where I work. Best wishes Richard ATTENTION ALL REFUGEES THINKING OF COMING TO AUSTRALIA: If you are currently suffering religious, racial or ethnic persecution, and are considering Australia as your destination, please consider the following: 1. Although Australia is a large continent, the vast majority of the country is uninhabitable due to the large number of poisonous snakes, spiders and man eating crocodiles. 2. Due to the hole in the Ozone layer, you cannot live in the sun unprotected for more than 15 mins and sunscreen costs exceed 40% of the average Australian wage. 3. Australia is in the process of beefing up their defence forces. F-111 bombers, P-3C Orion coastal patrol aircraft and FA-18 Hornet fighter aircraft all scour our oceans looking for your ships, while the world renowned and feared Collins class submarines are the invisible death lurking undetectable beneath our seas. ------------------------------------------------------------------- New Zealand would be a much more suitable place to go: 1. The land mass is virtually devoid of any population. Most of them came to Australia years ago, so unlike Australia, there's plenty of room. 2. The wonderful climate of New Zealand ensures that clouds preserve you from the effects of dangerous UV radiation. 3. The New Zealand Defence force is currently in the process of selling its' remaining DH Tigermoth biplane, Bill and Wazza of the Royal New Zealand Navy have taken their wooden dingy and quit. Therefore, sailing into New Zealand is simplicity in itself! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 15 10:21:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F0Kfm00160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:20:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gigi.excite.com (gigi.excite.com [199.172.152.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F0KaH00155 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:20:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from prance.excite.com ([199.172.153.84]) by gigi.excite.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.39 201-229-119-122) with ESMTP id <20011015001510.WKLW17391.gigi.excite.com@prance.excite.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:15:10 -0700 Message-ID: <2306025.1003104910499.JavaMail.imail@prance.excite.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 17:15:10 -0700 (PDT) From: trevor strickland To: Brambledown , BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Excite Australia Inbox X-Sender-Ip: 210.84.81.191 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (snip) > L46A says: > > "Proper form for Designating Dummy's Card > When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state > both the suit and the rank of the desired card." > > ISTM this should logically be part of L45 not L46, but whether or not it is > in the right place, it defines the correct procedure very clearly. It uses > "should", and the introduction (Scope and Interpretation) tells us that > "failure to do it is an infraction of Law". > > Chas Fellows (Brambledown) > This seems a harsh interpretation of the law. Does this mean that mean that I would be denied the pleasures of bridge after a laryngectomy or when visiting the Planet Zog (where I don't speak the language) because I would be unable to "clearly state both the suit and rank of the desired card" even though I would be perfectly able to "otherwise designate" ? Trevor Strickland _______________________________________________________ Get 100% private, FREE email for life from Excite Australia Visit http://inbox.excite.com.au/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 15 10:57:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F0vhs00184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:57:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F0vbH00179 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:57:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-66-89.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.66.89] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15svzJ-0004aF-00; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:52:14 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu><00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 14:20:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Grant Sterling" > > One of the above said: > The jury is still out on this: we have discussed it > before, but not come to an agreement. The Law > says that a card is played by two things: [1] declarer > names it: [2] dummy moves it. One school of thought > is that a card has not been played until both have >happened. > +=+ This latter school of thought has considerable difficulties to surmount. The use of 'after which', even without the reinforcing effect of the comma that precedes them, does not support the strange view they profess of the use of the English language. What the text of the Law says is that after declarer has played a card by naming it dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table. And, quoting Law 41, "Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 11:23:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F1N7w00357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:23:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F1N2H00353 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:23:02 +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 VAA20176 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA17127 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:17:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110150117.VAA17127@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I do not > believe that we can force a pair to play a 2C which will be passed this > round as anything but natural. Agreed. We might, however, look to see whether L72B1 might apply. (It probably won't in most practical cases, but it's worth checking.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 15 13:35:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F3ZN900408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:35:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F3ZGH00404 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:35:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id DAA14571 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 03:29:53 GMT Message-ID: <3ZbqK7B9ely7EwTA@asimere.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:27:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij>, Ton Kooijman writes > >>> >>+=+ We only have recourse to Law 46 when >>declarer has not defined clearly which card he has >>played from dummy. Whilst 46A does state the >>correct procedure for calling a card from dummy, >>before we get to that stage Law 45C4(a) allows >>that a card may be 'otherwise designated' than by >>naming it. If this is done unmistakably in the >>opinion of the Director he will rule that the >>designated card is played. Law 46 will not then >>enter into it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > >This seems the right summing up from a legal point of view. Now we need to >instruct the TD what to do in this case. >Declarer won a trick in dummy with a club and says 'ace' of which there are >still two in dummy one being the club ace. RHO plays a club to this spoken >'ace'. But it appears that declarer wanted to play the other (spade) ace and >he tells that he did point to the other ace and that dummy did touch and >moved the spade ace. > >Now the TD has to decide what to do. >My view is that it is posible that declarer wanted to play the spade ace. We >need to be at the table to decide about that. I have to say that the >description in which he asked for an ace and at the same moment pointed to >the spade ace sounds typical to me. We do not play like that. It is more >likely that seeing the club followed by RHO declarer understood the >confusion and then pointed to the spade ace as the one to be played. But it >is not that important. And you need to find those facts at the table (but I >have some experience and instinct). > >If the TD decides that declarer wanted to play the spade ace from the >beginning, he still should allow RHO to change his played card without >penalty, using 45C4b. Then the TD interprets saying 'ace' (which in itself >means club ace) and therewith pointing to the spade ace as the change of an >inadvertent designation of a card. > I concur with this view. I believe that declarer could have known that calling Ace and pointing to a different suit might damage the opponents, and that calling "Ace" alone is an infraction. If these are given then I can allow the next player to change his card without penalty. cheers John > >ton > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 15:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F5RQf06157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:27:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F5RKH06144 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:27:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9F5Kjh26153; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:20:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> References: <000f01c152f7 $0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:15:40 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:14 PM +0100 10/13/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ This is the point I was making when I so >rudely interrupted myself. If, as I understand, >declarer said 'Ace' and pointed clearly to the >Spades, he has played the spade Ace. The >suit is 'otherwise designated' per 45C4(a). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thanks. That being the case, we do not have an incomplete designation, and Law 46B doesn't apply. Right? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8pydL2UW3au93vOEQJNmgCg5VI5uXhMPOSMkS7XInXtAQ12+a8An1go ZNFxICt7XLA0+XOHmXmhHQxZ =/zAJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 15:37:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F5bFl08144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:37:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F5b8H08131 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:37:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9F5Ulh29381; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:30:47 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> References: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:24:10 -0400 To: "Ton Kooijman" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:30 AM +0200 10/14/01, Ton Kooijman wrote: >If the TD decides that declarer wanted to play the spade ace from the >beginning, he still should allow RHO to change his played card without >penalty, using 45C4b. Then the TD interprets saying 'ace' (which in itself >means club ace) and therewith pointing to the spade ace as the change of an >inadvertent designation of a card. It seems a bit of a stretch to me to call the simultaneous designation by pointing and saying "ace" a change of call. And if it isn't a change of call, this law doesn't apply. I admit it would be nice to be able to say it does apply, but I'm not so sure it would be right. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8p0wb2UW3au93vOEQI0dgCg0r/F2IYM0saSeQr8zsEVV4RR3GgAn2I8 TD0yd50ULhLZN9okL0wnGnX9 =PtMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 15:37:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F5bLR08156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:37:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F5bDH08141 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:37:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9F5Uph29399; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:30:51 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001601c1549f$0c163600$1b48063e@dodona> References: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> <001601c1549f$0c163600$1b48063e@dodona> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:31:22 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:38 AM +0100 10/14/01, Grattan Endicott wrote: >If the >pointing was unclear I think we can manage to give >both players the benefit of 45C4(b). Where RHO >has misunderstood, an inclination of the Director >to the latter view would, I think, have our sympathy. I see that it does. :-) And I sympathize with the view. But I'm still not convinced that one should rule under this law. As I said in reply to Ton, calling the simultaneous pointing and speaking a "change of designation" seems like a stretch, to me. Put it another way: RHO made a silly mistake. If we protect him from this one, why should we not protect him from others? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8p0xb2UW3au93vOEQKSdgCgnS9BHL71VVK6hlRhSpdZOC2qzu0AoLLm LCTEeM3/bHz6dGPVwSIhTpCB =C4To -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 15:47:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F5lJk10513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:47:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F5lDH10492 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 15:47:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9F5eeh02701; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:40:41 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3ZbqK7B9ely7EwTA@asimere.com> References: <008601c15482$342f95e0$2bb6f1c3@tkooij> <3ZbqK7B9ely7EwTA@asimere.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:39:46 -0400 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:27 AM +0100 10/15/01, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >I believe that declarer could have known that >calling Ace and pointing to a different suit might damage the opponents, >and that calling "Ace" alone is an infraction. If these are given then I >can allow the next player to change his card without penalty. Pfui. "Could have known" is IMO one of the worst phrases in the laws, and ought to be expunged wherever it appears. Even accepting your premise, you would not be ruling under 45C, but under 73F. Which, btw, requires that the offender have "no demonstrable bridge reason" for doing what he did. Since designating by other means than naming rank and suit is specifically allowed in the laws, and since designating by pointing is, at the very least, not uncommon, I don't see how you can show "no demonstrable bridge reason". Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8p3E72UW3au93vOEQKXVQCdFh4vLScCKaC8fzFlkasidVgfursAoPb0 yUte9nL0JwSlldSGfJPpkJ7J =9KkE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 16:42:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F6fw524075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:41:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9F6fpH24052 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:41:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-102-98.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.102.98] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15t1MS-0009Y3-00; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:36:28 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c15544$325bd220$6266063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:37:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 9:01 PM Subject: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action > > The NOs [N/S] were in 5D, which goes two down > doubled for NS-300. > However, there was an infraction, and their > opponents reached 5S because of it, which should > go one down for NS+100. Unfortunately there was > a defensive effort [perhaps a revoke?] which was > bad enough to qualify as irrational, wild or gambling > action: let us say it was irrational. As a result 5S > made for a table result of NS -650. > > So what score do we assign to each side? > +=+ See WBFLC minute 30th August 1998: whatever else the OS cannot have the benefit of opponents' irrational, wild or gambling action. If the NS pair had secured +100 they would not have been damaged; the score would not have been adjusted. It looks to me that the score for EW should be NS +100. For NS it would appear that none of the damage to them is a consequence of the infraction, so the whole of the damage is caused by their IWoG action; that would argue they retain the table score, but only if the judgement that their action was IWoG is sound. I shall read other replies with interest. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 18:03:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F82ow00204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:02:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f211.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.211]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9F82jH00200 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:57:19 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:57:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:57:19 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2001 07:57:19.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[039861A0:01C1554F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Are you afraid of us Irish? Did you not hear of the Irishman who moved to England and raised the average IQ of both countries? >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem >Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:51:20 +0100 > > > I am not prepared to post it on this list, but in similar vein I have >received an Irish joke descended from Sep 11 [yes, I shall email it on >request]. > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK >Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 >Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 18:15:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F8F0U00222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9F8EsH00218 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:14:55 +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 f9F89XB04208 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004201c15550$93775320$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:00:31 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > The NOs [N/S] were in 5D, which goes two down doubled for NS-300. > However, there was an infraction, and their opponents reached 5S because > of it, which should go one down for NS+100. > > Unfortunately there was a defensive effort [perhaps a revoke?] which > was bad enough to qualify as irrational, wild or gambling action: let us > say it was irrational. As a result 5S made for a table result of NS- > 650. > > So what score do we assign to each side? N/S get the table result -650. The damage they suffered was not a consequence of the infraction, merely subsequent to it, and it is only consequent damage for which the NOS gets redress. E/W get the most unfavorable result that was at all probable, infraction or no, which is +300. Why not -100? Wasn't it at all probable for 5S to go down a trick? No, that can't be assumed. Unless the play was affected by the infraction, you do not figure probabilities for a line of play that differs from the one that actually happened. > Please assume this occurred in Europe in an event where the Code of > Practice applies but not in England or Wales. To save you the trouble > of looking it up the relevant paragraph of the CoP reads: > > 'If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by > irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The > offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have > been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by > the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score > but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without > regard to the revoke.' I didn't understand this when I first read it, and I still don't. If it means that an OS is never to get the benefit of a revoke, that's crazy unless the infraction somehow caused the revoke. > > Another slightly different example: the Os bid 6H because of an > infraction, when they would have stopped in 5H otherwise. The defence > committed an irrational defence to let it through. What scores do we > assign? 6H making against the NOS, 5H with an overtrick for the OS (assuming that the infraction had no direct bearing on the bad defense). You don't change the play of the cards unless the play was affected by the infraction. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 19:54:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9F9riw01671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:53:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9F9rcH01667 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:53:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA09780; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:46:55 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA15142; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:47:59 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011016114513.00a6f700@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:47:49 +0200 To: "Alan Hill" , bnewsr@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:57 15/10/2001 +0100, Alan Hill wrote: >Are you afraid of us Irish? >Did you not hear of the Irishman who moved to England and raised the >average IQ of both countries? AG : nice example of what mathematicians call 'defector effect', not unlike the classical 'structural effect'. I must remember to include it in my next course - changing the nationalities according to the sensibility of the audience. By the way, did he really do ? Emigrating into England doesn't seem a wise move, if I read your words correctly. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 22:43:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FCgAN13206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:42:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FCg4H13195 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:42:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9FCaS406584 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:36:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011015082237.00b06d40@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:36:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:38 AM 10/13/01, David wrote: >Roger Pewick writes > > >For a partnership that has agreed to Michael's cuebids I should like > >to consider the auction 1C-2C* where the partner knows it would most > >likely be a bad move to respond 2S [or compete to 3S] holding > >Qxx-xx-KJxx-Qxxx only because of partner's infraction on the way to 2C > >[*1C OOT was cancelled]. In other words, the only way for offender to > >bid clubs naturally in an infraction free auction would be by starting > >at the 3 level or passing the first time around. > > > >Surely you see that via the infraction the offender has been able to > >supply his partner with the information: that he couldn't wait to > >open the bidding with a possible 3[?]-card suit, and overcall clubs, > >without having to risk contracting for at least nine tricks [by > >bidding for eight]. Thereby giving partner information that might, > >and probably will, prove useful when he is permitted to call at the > >second rotation but information not available any other way. > > > >At least this is the way the thread is going. > > I am not doubting that there are problems in allowing 2C to be >natural. I merely think that it is clear that we do allow it. I do not >believe that we can force a pair to play a 2C which will be passed this >round as anything but natural. While I agree with David, I'm not sure Roger's real concern requires that the partnership be playing Michaels, or that the "conventionality" of 1C and/or 2C is what's important here. Even were the partnership playing 1C-2C natural, the difference between the requirements for opening a "natural" 1C (which can be on C xxx) and for overcalling a "natural" 2C over RHO's 1C opening are substantial, and provide partner with the extraneous information about which Roger is concerned. It's not clear whether the author(s) of L27 made a conscious decision not to worry about such information, or whether they overlooked the possibility of such a large degree of variation between two "natural" calls in the same suit. If the latter, our lawmakers might want to consider a clarifying footnote which would be closely analogous to the footnote to L26, covering the case where the insufficient bid is not conventional and where the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is also not conventional but carries "a much different meaning". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 15 22:43:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FCgZ313268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:42:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.de (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FCgQH13237 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:42:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15t6zQ-0001Fo-08; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:37:04 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.226.214.61]) by fmrl05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15t6zD-1tnFvkC; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:36:51 +0200 Message-ID: <3BCAD80D.8FD623BC@vwalther.de> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:35:25 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ This is the point I was making when I so > rudely interrupted myself. If, as I understand, > declarer said 'Ace' and pointed clearly to the > Spades, he has played the spade Ace. The > suit is 'otherwise designated' per 45C4(a). > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Sorry, but I disagree. I do not think that 45C4(a) can be applied in that way. If a player names one card while designating another some other way that is clearly an improper play. If an opponent acts that way (e.g. showing one card while naming another) this would be an infraction and he would produce penalty-cards that way. If declarer calls for the 'Ace of Spades' while pointing to the Ace of clubs his intention is not clear (incontrovertible). I think we should not penalize a RHO who did not recognize this infraction of rules. The 'or' in L45C4a is an exclusive or; designating and naming different cards is not allowed. Here the problem is more difficult because the incomplete naming of the card is not in contradiction to the card otherwise designated. But if we agree that it is not allowed to name one card and designate another the situation becomes much clearer. RHO hears that declarer names a card. (The call is incomplete but unique according to L46B.) So there is no need for him to look which card is designated otherwise. I only would think that the gesture (Pointing to the Ace) is of importance if declarers call contains the information, that is accomplished by a gesture. "Play _this_ Ace, please". On the other hand simply calling 'Ace, please' is transferring two informations: 1.) "Declarer wants dummy to play an Ace" 2.) "Declarer has named a card according to L46 B 3" If declarer points to a special Ace,. that is an additonal designation of a card, not part of the naming. Greetings Volker Walther > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 00:39:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FEcu303960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:38:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FEcnH03956 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:38:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA14046; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:29:53 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA01501; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:33:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011016152910.00a7fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:32:54 +0200 To: "Volker R. Walther" , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[BLML]_Played_Card_(HHO=BDK)?= Cc: pitchoubis@hotmail.com, piret@dice.ucl.ac.be, nicole.marechal@chello.be, desset@tele.ucl.ac.be In-Reply-To: <3BCAD80D.8FD623BC@vwalther.de> References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:35 15/10/2001 +0200, Volker R. Walther wrote: >But if we agree that it is not allowed to name one card and designate >another the situation becomes much clearer. RHO hears that declarer >names a card. (The call is incomplete but unique according to L46B.) >So there is no need for him to look which card is designated >otherwise. Don't take this too seriously, but it did happen ... I like the unrthodox form of card convention created by the great Swedish team of the 1950s : if declarer calls an unnecessary high card from the table, he is telling to dummy that the contract is a make. This is quite useful with anxious and/or overbidding partners, of which I have some. Not so long ago, I was playing 4HXXX (I mean, vigorously doubled), and it was not difficult to see that either the hearts were 2-1, or the holder of the 3 cards would be subject to an easy endplay. This was the time for the Swedish Echo to come to the scene, but alas ! the lead was a Spade, and dummy's Spade holding was the bare 4. In such cases, you could always call for 'a high Spade', which will convey the information, and by the same way be a legal designation (partner must play his highest card in the suit ; it happens to be the 4). This time, I found a variation in calling for the 5 of Spades, while designating the 4 . Of course, somebody told me that it was the 4 ; thank you :-/ SMOn now, this is a silly case of a more general occurrence : declarer nominates a card that doesn't exist, while simutaneously designating a card rom the table (or making an obvious gesture like a raised or lowered finger) ; L46B4 tells us that the designation is cancelled and that the declarer must designate another legally playable card. The legitimate question is : do we consider the gesture as a substitute designation and demand that the declarer plays the designated card, or must the designation procedure restart from scratch ? An interesting case would be the declarer that sees AKQx on the table, raises his hand as to say 'take it' and calls for the Queen. If the cards on the table happen to be AKJx, is the declarer compelled to play the Ace (alternate designation), or is he allowed to call any card (cancelled designation) ? This could happen in Belgium, where some clubs use Dutch-marked cards, which bear a 'V' for the Queen, while others use French-marked cards, where 'V' refers to the Jack. If you still consider it a serious matter, I'd appreciate your opinion. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 02:54:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FGs7x04070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 02:54:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FGs1H04066 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 02:54:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp181-241.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.241]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A696B36B2E; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:48:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003201c15599$7f60eba0$f1b5f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:41:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > , Ton Kooijman wrote: >>If the TD decides that declarer wanted to play the spade ace from the >>beginning, he still should allow RHO to change his played card without >>penalty, using 45C4b. Then the TD interprets saying 'ace' (which in itself >>means club ace) and therewith pointing to the spade ace as the change of an >>inadvertent designation of a card. > >It seems a bit of a stretch to me to call the simultaneous >designation by pointing and saying "ace" a change of call. And if it >isn't a change of call, this law doesn't apply. I admit it would be >nice to be able to say it does apply, but I'm not so sure it would be >right. :-) > > >Regards, > >Ed I started this message by saying that I don't know the facts in detail. My experience tells me that what happened was the following: he said ace, realized at once that this was confusing and then pointed to the spade ace. In that case you probably agree that we have an inadvertent call here. But even when it was done simultaneously I still believe to have a case. An inadvertent call happens when you want to do something and start doing it, but manage to do something else. That is what happened here. You wanted to call for the ace of spades but did call for the ace of clubs. That is an inadvertent call. And can we find a better example of a change without a pause for thought than this one, done simultaneously? So, I still don't have problems with this approach. In '89, I have told this before, in the European Ch. women in Turku, Finland an Italian declarer asked for the King of hearts from dummy. Dummy, reluctantly, played this card because it was completely unexpected, not in line with any normal play. RHO ruffed and now declarer was completely astonished. What had happened was that dummy had spade KX and she had a singleton spades. The first lead had been the ace of spades and after winning the second trick in dummy declarer wanted to discard a looser on the king of spades. It was impossible for her that one of her opponents had only one spade leaving a 10-card suit to her partner, while the opponents never bid any suit. I decided this to be an inadvertent designation (there was even more proof for that). Declarer in her own mind had asked for the spade king, but something else happened, uncontroled (Italian and English the language to be used). She was sure to ask for the right king but didn't do it. In our case declarer was sure to ask for the spade ace but he didn't do it. Why isn't that an inadvertent call? O.K., don't agree or do, but this is my last contribution to this issue. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 03:53:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FHqph07071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 03:52:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r06.mx.aol.com (imo-r06.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.102]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FHqjH07055 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 03:52:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id c.87.11861996 (4530); Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:47:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 13:47:07 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card To: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, ereppert@rochester.rr.com CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_87.11861996.28fc7b1b_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_87.11861996.28fc7b1b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Ton, I've been reading the volumes of postings on this with an increasing sense of frustration and disbelief. You, Grattan, (And I -- silently) have a wealth of experience in the use of the Laws. You are right on with your postings, but I continue to see verbiage and heels-dug-in blather about what is really not an infrequent happening. I can, without strain, recall at least 4 such occurences in the last few years, one of which was in the Bermuda Bowl in China. Yet some continue to quote unapplicable Laws, stretch wordings beyond the limits of belief, and spew spurious arguments, to the extent that my "delete" key is getting worn. My first and last contribution to this thread. If you can't accept and learn from Ton's posting, so be it. Kojak --part1_87.11861996.28fc7b1b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Ton,

I've been reading the volumes of postings on this with an increasing sense of frustration and disbelief.  You, Grattan, (And I -- silently) have a wealth of experience in the use of the Laws.  You are right on with your postings, but I continue to see verbiage and heels-dug-in blather about what is really not an infrequent happening.  I can, without strain, recall at least 4 such occurences in the last few years,  one of which was in the Bermuda Bowl in China. Yet some continue to quote unapplicable Laws, stretch wordings beyond the limits of belief, and spew spurious arguments, to the extent that my "delete" key is getting worn.  

My first and last contribution to this thread. If you can't accept and learn from Ton's posting,  so be it.

Kojak --part1_87.11861996.28fc7b1b_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 06:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FKdcE29653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:39:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FKdWH29649 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:39:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9FKXih09046; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:33:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003201c15599$7f60eba0$f1b5f1c3@tkooij> References: <003201c15599$7f60eba0$f1b5f1c3@tkooij> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:31:00 -0400 To: "Ton Kooijman" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "Ed Reppert" , "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 6:41 PM +0200 10/15/01, Ton Kooijman wrote: >I started this message by saying that I don't know the facts in detail. We're all working from the same, probably incomplete, set of facts. :-) > >My experience tells me that what happened was the following: he said ace, >realized at once that this was confusing and then pointed to the spade ace. >In that case you probably agree that we have an inadvertent call here. In that case, yes. However, while your experience far exceeds mine, I have to say that when I have done this (and I've done it more than once), it was with the full intention to designate the card at which I was pointing, from the beginning. And to the best of my knowledge, when I've seen others do it, their intent was the same. >But even when it was done simultaneously I still believe to have a case. [snip] > Why isn't that an inadvertent call? I suppose it is. But is it the same situation as we have now? >O.K., don't agree or do, but this is my last contribution to this issue. I participate on this list because I'm trying to learn how best to apply the laws. If I don't understand something, or don't agree with something, I seek to clarify through discussion. If the experts on the law who sometimes post here are unwilling to help with that, then perhaps I should consider my participation a mistake, and go somewhere else. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8tIPL2UW3au93vOEQLtvACgxxsKcZykgQuAwLlWgx0frIqM6jkAn2os ubwJ0ZPfcTJqtRZWnXHvl+SV =bQ+K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 06:49:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FKngx29670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:49:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FKnbH29666 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:49:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9FKgtF05461; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:42:55 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> References: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:34:33 -0400 To: Schoderb@aol.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl, ereppert@rochester.rr.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:47 PM -0400 10/15/01, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >My first and last contribution to this thread. If you can't accept >and learn from Ton's posting, so be it. You address your message to Ton, but this rather insulting comment is obviously directed to me. Apparently I'm not worthy to participate in this forum. So be it indeed. :-( Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO8tKj72UW3au93vOEQIl1ACfbhVDeLvk9xnZQmsaVrDt16eg1ZAAoPR5 0v0xeSHT96ztXtqgGnTH6rPw =7AWh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 08:15:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FMEuX03570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:14:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FMEkH03561 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:14:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15tFv8-0009cq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:09:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:17:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: David Stevenson >> The jury is still out on this: we have discussed it >> before, but not come to an agreement. The Law >> says that a card is played by two things: [1] declarer >> names it: [2] dummy moves it. One school of thought >> is that a card has not been played until both have >>happened. >+=+ This latter school of thought has considerable >difficulties to surmount. The use of 'after which', >even without the reinforcing effect of the comma >that precedes them, does not support the strange >view they profess of the use of the English language. >What the text of the Law says is that after declarer >has played a card by naming it dummy picks up the >card and faces it on the table. And, quoting Law 41, >"Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy". I see no real reason to go through this again, but if you insist: it is not as clear as you make it seem. You change gear on a car by depressing the clutch, after which you move the gear lever. That contains a comma in the same place. Do you believe you have changed gear once you have depressed the clutch? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 08:15:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FMEt103569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:14:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FMEiH03557 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:14:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15tFv8-0009cp-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:12:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: <000d01c15243$d8149ac0$1200a8c0@asimere.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20011015082237.00b06d40@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011015082237.00b06d40@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 10:38 AM 10/13/01, David wrote: > >>Roger Pewick writes >> >> >For a partnership that has agreed to Michael's cuebids I should like >> >to consider the auction 1C-2C* where the partner knows it would most >> >likely be a bad move to respond 2S [or compete to 3S] holding >> >Qxx-xx-KJxx-Qxxx only because of partner's infraction on the way to 2C >> >[*1C OOT was cancelled]. In other words, the only way for offender to >> >bid clubs naturally in an infraction free auction would be by starting >> >at the 3 level or passing the first time around. >> > >> >Surely you see that via the infraction the offender has been able to >> >supply his partner with the information: that he couldn't wait to >> >open the bidding with a possible 3[?]-card suit, and overcall clubs, >> >without having to risk contracting for at least nine tricks [by >> >bidding for eight]. Thereby giving partner information that might, >> >and probably will, prove useful when he is permitted to call at the >> >second rotation but information not available any other way. >> > >> >At least this is the way the thread is going. >> >> I am not doubting that there are problems in allowing 2C to be >>natural. I merely think that it is clear that we do allow it. I do not >>believe that we can force a pair to play a 2C which will be passed this >>round as anything but natural. > >While I agree with David, I'm not sure Roger's real concern requires >that the partnership be playing Michaels, or that the "conventionality" >of 1C and/or 2C is what's important here. Even were the partnership >playing 1C-2C natural, the difference between the requirements for >opening a "natural" 1C (which can be on C xxx) and for overcalling a >"natural" 2C over RHO's 1C opening are substantial, and provide partner >with the extraneous information about which Roger is concerned. It's >not clear whether the author(s) of L27 made a conscious decision not to >worry about such information, or whether they overlooked the >possibility of such a large degree of variation between two "natural" >calls in the same suit. If the latter, our lawmakers might want to >consider a clarifying footnote which would be closely analogous to the >footnote to L26, covering the case where the insufficient bid is not >conventional and where the lowest sufficient bid in the same >denomination is also not conventional but carries "a much different >meaning". Eric: you have now done what I did and treated it as a L27 problem. it wasn't: it was a call OOT. An alternative solution is to include something like L27B1B in the COOT laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 08:15:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FMEpn03568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:14:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FMEgH03554 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:14:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15tFv8-0009co-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:09:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:08:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem 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 Alan Hill writes >Are you afraid of us Irish? >Did you not hear of the Irishman who moved to England and raised the average >IQ of both countries? I hear that last week Ireland had its worst ever air disaster when a Tiger Moth biplane crashed into a graveyard. Police have recovered 128 bodies and are still digging. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 08:55:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FMtTB03613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:55:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9FMtNH03609 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:55:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15tGYX-0004D2-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:49:59 +0100 Message-ID: <9usR7FMEW2y7EwgD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:39:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9FMtPH03610 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes > Dear Ton, > > I've been reading the volumes of postings on this with an > increasing sense of frustration and disbelief.  You, Grattan, (And > I -- silently) have a wealth of experience in the use of the Laws. >  You are right on with your postings, but I continue to see > verbiage and heels-dug-in blather about what is really not an > infrequent happening.  I can, without strain, recall at least 4 > such occurences in the last few years,  one of which was in the > Bermuda Bowl in China. Yet some continue to quote unapplicable > Laws, stretch wordings beyond the limits of belief, and spew > spurious arguments, to the extent that my "delete" key is getting > worn.   > > My first and last contribution to this thread. If you can't accept > and learn from Ton's posting,  so be it. I feel you might reconsider this post, Kojak. It seems to have upset a number of my friends. While some of Ton's posts have been useful, probably the most relevant thing he has said is that wee do not have all the facts. I do not think that this particular case is as clear as you suggest it is and I do think it worthy of discussion. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 09:45:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9FNisi03646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:44:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9FNiiH03642 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:44:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-88-47.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.88.47] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tHKH-000HGV-00; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:39:18 +0100 Message-ID: <004c01c155d2$a0780d80$2f58063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Ed Reppert" , "BLML" References: <003201c15599$7f60eba0$f1b5f1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:33:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Ton Kooijman Cc: Ed Reppert ; BLML Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 6:41 PM +0200 10/15/01, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > I started this message by saying that I don't know > > the facts in detail. > > We're all working from the same, probably incomplete, > set of facts. :-) > +=+ When posting I have been trying to qualify my views in some respects to allow for the probable deficiency +=+ > > I participate on this list because I'm trying to > learn how best to apply the laws. If I don't understand > something, or don't agree with something, I seek to > clarify through discussion. If the experts on the law > who sometimes post here are unwilling to help with > that, then perhaps I should consider my participation > a mistake, and go somewhere else. :-( > +=+ The 'experts', as you call them, are all prone to error - and they are only 'expert' to the extent that their views are weighed. At times they do let frustration and impatience leak from their remarks, and this is of course a weakness when it happens. However, tenor and baritone, ton and I have been singing in harmony - and a throaty transatlantic bass has now joined us - so there may be a prima facie case for believing we have the right tune. I would have hoped this could be helpful, but in any case you should know that from time to time you do emerge with a thought that causes me to cast the runes a second time. So, please, do not flail your ball angrily into the heather. Meanwhile, if declarer points firmly to the Spade suit and says 'ace', in my view if he has a spade RHO's club is an attempt to revoke. This is where I stop short of what ton seems to advocate: I need at least a sliver of uncertainty to bring in Law 45C4(b). But I stand ready to discern it in the slightest twitch. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 10:14:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G0Drq03670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:13:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9G0DlH03666 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:13:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-62-221.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.62.221] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tHmQ-000L5m-00; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:08:22 +0100 Message-ID: <006301c155d6$b07674c0$2f58063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu><00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com><000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:07:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > I see no real reason to go through this again, > but if you insist: it is not as clear as you make > it seem. You change gear on a car by depressing > the clutch, after which you move the gear lever. > That contains a comma in the same place. Do > you believe you have changed gear once you have > depressed the clutch? > +=+ No, I do not. I consider that so worded the statement is a false one, typical of inferior translations of instructions how to use foreign products. This one should say "you change gear by depressing the clutch and then moving the gear lever". ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 11:35:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G1YTo12143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:34:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9G1YOH12139 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:34:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.47.105] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15tJ2Q-0000nh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 02:28:58 +0100 Message-ID: <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 02:28:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Grattan Endicott writes > >From: David Stevenson > > >> The jury is still out on this: we have discussed it > >> before, but not come to an agreement. The Law > >> says that a card is played by two things: [1] declarer > >> names it: [2] dummy moves it. One school of thought > >> is that a card has not been played until both have > >>happened. > > >+=+ This latter school of thought has considerable > >difficulties to surmount. The use of 'after which', > >even without the reinforcing effect of the comma > >that precedes them, does not support the strange > >view they profess of the use of the English language. > >What the text of the Law says is that after declarer > >has played a card by naming it dummy picks up the > >card and faces it on the table. And, quoting Law 41, > >"Declarer plays both his hand and that of dummy". > > I see no real reason to go through this again, but if you insist: it > is not as clear as you make it seem. You change gear on a car by > depressing the clutch, after which you move the gear lever. That > contains a comma in the same place. Do you believe you have changed > gear once you have depressed the clutch? I have heard this somewhere before. It is, as I may have meant to point out before, a false analogy. Nowhere in any manual on "How to Drive" does DWS's sentence appear; it is something that he has constructed to bolster a specious argument. It is entirely clear from the words in the Laws that once declarer has named or otherwise designated a card to be played from dummy, that card is played - the actions of dummy thereafter cannot change the status of the card. Thus, the Law does *not* say that: a card is played by two things: [1] declarer names it: [2] dummy moves it. Instead, it says that a card is played by one thing: declarer names it. The jury is not "still out" on this, for this is not a matter for a jury; rather, the judge will (and has) directed the jury to find that once a card has been named by declarer, it is a played card. And quite right too. This thread, to which I have been paying no attention, appears to concern a case in which there is some doubt as to the actual card that declarer has named. The questions thereby raised have nothing to do with this fact: if declarer has unambiguously designated a card, that card is played, whether dummy has moved the card or left the table to move his car. I have nothing much else to do, so I will read the rest of the thread and try to distinguish between black aces - a useful attribute for a bridge player, or so I am told. >From what I can gather at the moment, though, the declarer asked for an ace, without specifying which ace; an opponent, thinking that the ace of clubs was "played", followed suit; it then transpired that the ace declarer had in mind was the ace of spades. All I would say about that is this: there is no excuse whatever for a declarer who leaves doubt in anyone's mind about the card he has requested from dummy. As usual, the relevant Laws would cause no problem if they read as follows: "Declarer specifies a card to be played from dummy by naming both the suit and the rank of the card, or by physically detaching the card from dummy. If he fails in this respect, either defender may require the play of any card from dummy that may legally be played to the current trick." Of course, they wouldn't like this at Eric Landau's club. I can't help that - I would ask only: is anyone happy with the current situation where a man asks this way, points that way, and then summons some hapless individual to sort out the resulting mess to the disgruntlement of all concerned? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 12:46:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G2jiQ12178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:45:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9G2jcH12174 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:45:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.61.250] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15tK9K-0002cH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 03:40:10 +0100 Message-ID: <005601c155eb$c2f50e80$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 03:38:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Going through this thread one at a time: DWS: > We allow insufficient designations always. The defender is just very > silly and has paid the price. It is not clear to me that we "allow insufficient designations always". If we do, then assuredly we should not; declarer (when the lead is in dummy) should call for a card from dummy by naming its suit and its rank. After all, in the days when bridge was a game, declarer would have to physically pick out a card from dummy with his fingers. Why should a defender be disadvantaged because a declarer can (apparently) now just say "ace"? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 14:16:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G4FKd12246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:15:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9G4FFH12242 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:15:16 +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 f9G49qw24314 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007301c155f8$27670d80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:00:32 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Apparently I'm not worthy to participate in > this forum. So be it indeed. > > :-( > I find you very worthy. I could hardly believe it when I discovered you were not an experienced player, considering the bridge-intelligence of your discussions. You don't bad-mouth anyone, which is a big plus in my estimation. Please stick around. 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 Oct 16 18:19:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G8IX919868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:18:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9G8IQH19864 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:18:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-33.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.33]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9G8CxT05497 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:13:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:23:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As often happens, David is unclear as to where he is going with his question, and all kinds of tricks can be expected. I won't let him scare me away so : David Stevenson wrote: > > The NOs [N/S] were in 5D, which goes two down doubled for NS-300. > However, there was an infraction, and their opponents reached 5S because > of it, which should go one down for NS+100. > > Unfortunately there was a defensive effort [perhaps a revoke?] which > was bad enough to qualify as irrational, wild or gambling action: let us > say it was irrational. As a result 5S made for a table result of NS- > 650. > > So what score do we assign to each side? > > Please assume this occurred in Europe in an event where the Code of > Practice applies but not in England or Wales. To save you the trouble > of looking it up the relevant paragraph of the CoP reads: > > 'If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by > irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. I gather this means NS receive -650 > The > offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have > been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. I cannot believe this means NS +100 Without the infraction, NS would not have bid 5S, so the result stays at -300. (so +300 for them) > A revoke by > the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score > but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without > regard to the revoke.' > > Another slightly different example: the Os bid 6H because of an > infraction, when they would have stopped in 5H otherwise. The defence > committed an irrational defence to let it through. What scores do we > assign? > Os : 5H+1 (result without infraction) NOs : 6H= I realize that in this case the OS get some benefit from the irrational action (the overtrick), while in the previous one they did not, but that is the consequence of our general principle to award the same number of tricks if the reconsidered contract is in the same denomination as the actually played one, and the normal number if the contract is in some other denomination. You know what I think of that principle, but that is not a topic for this thread. > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 > Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 18:40:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G8dgH19881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:39:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9G8daH19877 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:39:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-1-116-116.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.1.116.116] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tPft-0001Et-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:34:10 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c1561d$59664740$747401d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <20011016054845.JUU18079.web1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> Subject: [BLML] Law 46A, and reference to 45. Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:23:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:01:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9G8uP227741 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:56:25 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9G8uPk19903 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:56:25 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:56:25 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Claim and finesse Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have won medals in European championships and stronger events. K Q x J x x A Q x K Q x x x x J x x x x A x x K J 9 West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way back). Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 19:25:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9G9NHj19920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:23:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9G9NBH19916 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:23:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h88.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.88]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9G9Hgx05272; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:17:42 +0400 Message-ID: <3BCBEE51.C7DF5FCC@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:22:41 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ereppert@rochester.rr.com Subject: [BLML] Open Letter References: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------10A445617885DE779C1FE401" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --------------10A445617885DE779C1FE401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:) Sorry in advance for rather long and emotional post - but my felings were disturbed too deep. After thinking a day I dared to write. 1. Kojak wrote:"I've been reading the volumes of postings on this with an increasing sense of frustration and disbelief.. Yet some continue to quote unapplicable Laws, stretch wordings beyond the limits of belief, and spew spurious arguments, to the extent that my "delete" key is getting worn." Not for the first time Kojak sent to BLML harsh post. Approximately year ago I asked him to be more patient to us, grey-minded ordinary member of Great Bridge Community (GBC). Nothing is to be done - he cannot change himself. That's why I feel free to expose my personal opinion corresponding to Kojak's posts. 2. There are several aspekts in Kojak's wording. First of all these sharp, intolerant and arrogant words were published by person from his high position in GBC. For me - no high-placed people can show such features (at least - outwardly). Especially - when he is speaking to members of the same GBC, whom he should SERVE, not RULE.By the way - is Kojak's position elective? 3. Another pair of shoes is that I hardly beleive whether public person, who in public life violates the Laws (see L74), have rights to be TD. I guess that in my local bridge club such a person would never be allowed to provide contests: cause he proved that he could not mix with an ordinary people (players, directors, etc.) As I can remember E. Kaplan ("Appeal Committee") taught that "explanation - is more than drop of oil that calms heavy sea" (sorry - reverse translation from Russian). TD (especially World Chief TD) MUST be tolerant and ready to teach. It is my sharp opinion. 4. For my opinion authors of posts did nothing wrong, made no irregularity. They have their rights for their opinion: so for right one as for wrong. And they have rights for exposing their position. I dare to hope that Kojak has ever heard about the Bill of Rights - cause his e-mail address is AOL. I AM ASHAMED of his post and I ask Ed Reppert to excuse for his impossible style. And NOT QIUT from BLML - Kojak is not worthy of it. 5. I guess that Kojak may feel sinless. The only known sinless person - the Lord-Son - was extremally tolerant. He said: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" (Sorry - it should be written in Old-English, but I do not know it...). OK, Kojak wrote:"You (here he meant Ton), Grattan, (And I -- silently) have a wealth of experience in the use of the Laws." That gave me right to judge him. I would like to remind that it was Kojak whose experience in the use of the Laws in fact ruined Pairs Champ (Lille-1998): - in one of session (as I remember - the last one) from Final there were pairs that played less than 40% of the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the boards, - there were pairs from one country that were playing against each other during last final session (they were not seeded for meeting in first or second session) and such a mutual played boards costituted even more than 50% of played boards in this session, - there were very strange biddings, card playings and results - even in Vu-graf, - and it was Kajak who was CTD on this Champ... As I know - nobody was in charge. And for my opinion it is impunity that gives birth to feeling of sinless. 6. I guess - Kojak really has his right to use "delete" key. But I'd like to say that if Kojak does not apologize to Ed (and to other blmlists) - I will use my rights and delete all his messages. By the way - these message was not too useful for grey-minded members of GBC: usually they were quite short and emotional, like "Amen" or similar, and almost empty of direct bridge merit. Although we (grey-minded) excpect from our leaders their comments and explanations. Not just pure one-worded final estimations. 7. It may happen that it is my last post to BLML: I may be excluded for this post. Never mind, I enjoyed by reading during several years, learnt a lot. Best wishes Vitold --------------10A445617885DE779C1FE401 Content-Type: text/html; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:)

Sorry in advance for rather long and emotional post - but my felings were disturbed too deep. After thinking a day I dared to write.

1. Kojak wrote:"I've been reading the volumes of postings on this with an increasing sense of frustration and disbelief.. Yet some continue to quote unapplicable Laws, stretch wordings beyond the limits of belief, and spew spurious arguments, to the extent that my "delete" key is getting worn."
Not for the first time Kojak sent to BLML harsh post. Approximately year ago I asked him to be more patient to us, grey-minded ordinary member of Great Bridge Community (GBC). Nothing is to be done - he cannot change himself. That's why I feel free to expose my personal opinion corresponding to Kojak's posts.

2. There are several aspekts in Kojak's wording. First of all these sharp, intolerant and arrogant words were published by person from his high position in GBC. For me - no high-placed people can show such features (at least - outwardly). Especially - when he is speaking to members of the same GBC, whom he should SERVE, not RULE.By the way - is Kojak's position elective?

3. Another pair of shoes is that I hardly beleive whether public person, who in public life violates the Laws (see L74), have rights to be TD. I guess that in my local bridge club such a person would never be allowed to provide contests: cause he proved that he could not mix with an ordinary people (players, directors, etc.)
As I can remember E. Kaplan ("Appeal Committee") taught that "explanation - is more than drop of oil that calms heavy sea" (sorry - reverse translation from Russian). TD (especially World Chief TD) MUST be tolerant and ready to teach. It is my sharp opinion.

4. For my opinion authors of posts did nothing wrong, made no irregularity. They have their rights for their opinion: so for right one as for wrong. And they have rights for exposing their position. I dare to hope that Kojak has ever heard about the Bill of Rights - cause his e-mail address is AOL. I AM ASHAMED of his post and I ask Ed Reppert to excuse for his impossible style. And NOT QIUT from BLML - Kojak is not worthy of it.

5. I guess that Kojak may feel sinless. The only known sinless person - the Lord-Son - was extremally tolerant. He said: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" (Sorry - it should be written in Old-English, but I do not know it...). OK, Kojak wrote:"You (here he meant Ton), Grattan, (And I -- silently) have a wealth of experience in the use of the Laws." That gave me right to judge him. I would like to remind that it was Kojak whose experience in the use of the Laws in fact ruined Pairs Champ (Lille-1998):
 - in one of session (as I remember - the last one) from Final there were pairs that played less than 40% of the boards, and a most of pairs played no more than 80% of the boards,
 - there were  pairs from one country that were playing against each other during last final  session (they were not seeded for meeting in first or second session) and such a mutual played boards costituted even more than 50% of played boards in this session,
 - there were very strange biddings, card playings and results - even in Vu-graf,
 - and it was Kajak who was CTD on this Champ...
As I know - nobody was in charge. And for my opinion it is impunity that gives birth to feeling of sinless.

6. I guess - Kojak really has his right to use "delete" key. But I'd like to say that if Kojak does not apologize to Ed (and to other blmlists) - I will use my rights and delete all his messages. By the way - these message was not too useful for grey-minded members of GBC: usually they were quite short and emotional, like "Amen" or similar, and almost empty of direct bridge merit. Although we (grey-minded) excpect from our leaders their comments and explanations. Not just pure one-worded final estimations.

7. It may happen that it is my last post to BLML: I may be excluded for this post. Never mind, I enjoyed by reading during several years, learnt a lot.

Best wishes
Vitold --------------10A445617885DE779C1FE401-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 20:11:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GABEx21482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net [207.44.96.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9GAB7H21451 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:08 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18992 invoked by uid 50005); 16 Oct 2001 10:00:53 -0000 Received: from brian@wellsborocomputing.com by smtpc with qmail-scanner-1.00 (uvscan: v4.1.40/v4165. . Clean. Processed in 0.133129 secs); 16 Oct 2001 10:00:53 -0000 Received: from dell600 ([24.229.82.40]) (envelope-sender ) by smtpc.ha-net.ptd.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 16 Oct 2001 10:00:53 -0000 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: ereppert@rochester.rr.com Subject: [BLML] Posting on BLML Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 06:05:48 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <87.11861996.28fc7b1b@aol.com> <007301c155f8$27670d80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007301c155f8$27670d80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:00:32 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >> Apparently I'm not worthy to participate in >> this forum. So be it indeed. >> >> :-( >> >I find you very worthy. I could hardly believe it when I discovered you were >not an experienced player, considering the bridge-intelligence of your >discussions. You don't bad-mouth anyone, which is a big plus in my >estimation. Please stick around. > Marv, I agree totally. Kojak has tried this trick before - last time, if memory serves me right, it was any time that two out of three of he, Grattan and Ton were in agreement the rest of us should shut up. Maybe it needs to be pointed out once again that BLML is a discussion list, not something created for the three above-named individuals to drop pearls of wisdom as they see fit (in fairness, it only appears to be one of the three that seems to think this should be the case). Kojak, if you want a mailing list where whatever combination of Ton, Grattan and yourself, plus anyone else you might wish to designate, can put an end to a thread by simply posting an opinion, then the answer is to go and set yourself up a moderated list. This involves no cost to you other than a couple of minutes of your time, and can be done very simply at http://www.yahoogroups.com Unless and until you do that, remember that nobody forces you to answer. If you don't think someone's contributions are worth reading, then save your delete key, get yourself a mail reader with filtering capabilities, and learn how to use it. If this is difficult or impossible on AOL, then get yourself a standard ISP, after which you'll find it's trivial (it takes me exactly four mouse clicks in Forte's Agent to ignore a particular poster). Ed has said on previous occasions that he's in this group to learn. As any halfway decent teacher will tell you, the way to get people to learn is NOT to try to stifle discussion, *EVEN IF* you think one side of the argument is just plain wrong. If that happens and you feel the need to respond, just say that you consider the arguments untenable, and then move on to the next thread. Remember that there may be more than just Ed who hold a particular view, Ed just happened to be the one who was prepared to take the trouble to debate the point. The right to post on this mailing list is something which is available to all in return for subscribing, barring any intervention by Markus. Your (dis)approval of their postings forms no part of the process, Kojak, and the sooner you get used to that fact the better for all concerned, IMO. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 20:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GAfTA27918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:41:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GAfNH27914 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:41:23 +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 MAA08262; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:32:42 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA20502; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:35:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011017123300.00a9b2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:35:45 +0200 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:56 16/10/2001 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have >won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > K Q x J x x > A Q x > K Q x x x x J x x x x > A x x K J 9 > > >West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer >now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about >his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get >the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll >obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > >Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? AG : no. It is obvious that he didn't know he had to take it. How could he know he would end with 11 tricks, since the position of the CQ wasn't known ? Clearly, he didn't realise the need for a finesse, and only the objection made him awake. I'd be ready to pretend that he has put a club with his spades, and thought about a double ruff. In this case, we may demand that he play two top clubs. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 21:29:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GBTZ327964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:29:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GBTTH27960 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:29:29 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA05270; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:24:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Oct 16 13:21:50 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9KJJ58KW0000KEQ@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:23:30 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:23:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:20:36 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Open Letter To: "'vitold'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ereppert@rochester.rr.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) I am reacting on a message sent in by Vitold, not thinking it wise to send his message once more. Dear Vitold, what happened with you? I consider your reaction as not acceptable from a civilised point of view, contrary to the message sent in by Kojak, being not very tolerant, but still complying with the conditions to fulfil a polite conversation. And when you start your personal attack you better try to get your information right. The schedule used in the final was my responsibility, not Kojak's, though he for sure feels responsible as well. And we did seed the players in the final, but with too many players from the same countries the endless howell schedule creates some problems that can't be solved. No, Kojak's job is not one open for election. And reading messages like your's, being a potential voter and even candidate, I have to say that I feel happy with that. I realise that this is not a very nice reaction either, but it could be worse, I can assure you. Try to calm down and, showing some education, you might consider to apologise for this over reaction. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 21:42:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GBgHf27982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:42:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.100]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GBgCH27978 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:42:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id y.3f.3284a8 (3984); Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:36:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <3f.3284a8.28fd75ca@aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:36:42 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Open Letter To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ereppert@rochester.rr.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3f.3284a8.28fd75ca_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_3f.3284a8.28fd75ca_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gee, and I thouight I was being nice! If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry. It was wrong of me to pick your posting as an example by responding to Ton's response to you. Please don't let my "harsh" words disuade you from continuing to post and have your rightful opinions. You are not one on which I use the delete key. As for you, Mr. Vitold, a few comments, hopefully accepted by you in the spirit of discussion. Which, -- discussion -- IMHO should usually lead to education and admission of error when the learning process has been exercised. I find very few of the posters willing to admit that they have learned something by finding that their opinions are in error. Herman has done so, and a few others, including me. It is the real value of discussion when one learns from others. As I am learning by writing less harshly, and less arrogantly. As to your remakrs about my performance let me pleasantly say the following. Law 74 uses the word "player(s)" throughout. It stretches my imagination to apply it to me for dislike of my posting. Your comments about Lille and the disaster in the Pairs Chapionships can only be the result of a complete ignorance on your part of what happened, and harshly judgemental. I strongly suggest that you might find out what happened before you attack so vehemently. My acceptance of the ultimate resposibility is what I would expect of any experienced, qualified Chief Tournament Director. I'm glad and sorry that I gave you the opportunity to vent your spleen and set me straight. I do learn from being chastised, but usually more when the facts are correct. Be assured that I feel far from "sinless." My life has had too many occasions where sinning could be properly ascribed. I would recommend you leave that judgement to my God. Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted. My point, poorly stated, was that it is frustrating to see a thread continue with positions repeatedly stated, lack of comprehension of the present laws wording, and lack of consensus or conclusion. I strongly recommend David Burn's postings of 15 October to anyone who would like to not only know what the present Law says, but also contains a recommmendation for change in future Laws. Best regards, Kojak --part1_3f.3284a8.28fd75ca_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gee, and I thouight I was being nice!

If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry. It was wrong of me to pick your posting as an example by responding to Ton's response to you.  Please don't let my "harsh" words disuade you from continuing to post and have your rightful opinions. You  are not one on which I use the delete key.

As for you, Mr. Vitold, a few comments, hopefully accepted by you in the spirit of discussion.  Which, -- discussion -- IMHO should usually lead to education and admission of error when the learning process has been exercised. I find very few of the posters willing to admit that they have learned something by finding that their opinions are in error.  Herman  has done so, and a few others, including me.  It is the real value of discussion when one learns from others.  As I am learning by writing less harshly, and less arrogantly. As to your remakrs about my performance let me pleasantly say the following.  Law 74 uses the word "player(s)" throughout.  It stretches my imagination to apply it to me for dislike of my posting.  Your comments about Lille and the disaster in the Pairs Chapionships can only be the result of a complete ignorance on your part of what happened, and harshly judgemental.  I strongly suggest that you might find out what happened before you attack so vehemently. My acceptance of the ultimate resposibility is what I would expect of any experienced, qualified Chief Tournament Director.

I'm glad and sorry that I gave you the opportunity to vent your spleen and  set me straight.  I do learn from being chastised, but usually more when the facts are correct. Be assured that I feel far from "sinless."  My life has had too many occasions where sinning could be properly ascribed. I would recommend you leave that judgement to my God.

Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted.  My point, poorly stated, was that it is frustrating to see a thread continue with positions  repeatedly stated,   lack of comprehension of the present laws wording, and lack of consensus or conclusion.  I strongly recommend David Burn's postings of 15 October to anyone who would like to not only know what the present Law says, but also contains a recommmendation for change in future Laws.

Best regards,    Kojak
--part1_3f.3284a8.28fd75ca_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 21:48:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GBmgA28147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:48:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow028o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GBmaH28133 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:48:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcow028m.blueyonder.net ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:43:12 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c15637$d4a72b80$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:43:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems very likely declarer has miscounted his tricks and thought he had 11 without recourse to the C finesse (If I ask him, he may indeed honestly confess this - my experience is that players do tell the truth) - no one claims like this if they think the C finesse is necessary for 11 tricks Obviously if he plays the hand out, at some stage declarer will realise that he only has ten tricks - IMHO this is as likely to be after cashing the top Clubs as before and I have no difficulty in ruling 1 off - "any doubtful points should be resolved against the claimer" If the player wants to appeal - I shall be happy to accept his deposit and confidently expect the appeal commitee to retain it (I have been wrong before ) Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Claim and finesse > > From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > K Q x J x x > A Q x > K Q x x x x J x x x x > A x x K J 9 > > > West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer > now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about > his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get > the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > > Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > > Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs > (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way > back). > > Henk > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, > then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 21:55:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GBtUN29438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:55:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GBtKH29418 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:55:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-72-208.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.72.208] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tSjL-0009V3-00; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:49:55 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c15638$7b2898e0$d048063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Alan Hill" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:47:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: 15 October 2001 08:57 Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem > Are you afraid of us Irish? > Did you not hear of the Irishman who moved to > England and raised the average IQ of both > countries? > +=+ When I first read this joke, over 30 years ago in County Kerry, it was a Kerry man who moved to Cork. The Irish are very polite to strangers. It was about the same time that I saw a headline in an Irish paper saying that the Garda had quelled a riot at Port Laoise Gaol. Since only six inmates were involved I made a note that a riot needs at most six Irishmen. There was also the young lady who was knocked down by a runaway horse in Killarney, reported on the radio to be "in a stable condition". Humour comes naturally in that country. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 21:55:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GBtTt29436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:55:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GBtJH29415 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 21:55:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-72-208.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.72.208] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tSjJ-0009V3-00; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:49:53 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c15638$7a2cd3c0$d048063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Volker R. Walther" , "BLML" References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <3BCAD80D.8FD623BC@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:55:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: BLML Sent: 15 October 2001 13:35 Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ This is the point I was making when I so > > rudely interrupted myself. If, as I understand, > > declarer said 'Ace' and pointed clearly to the > > Spades, he has played the spade Ace. The > > suit is 'otherwise designated' per 45C4(a). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Sorry, but I disagree. I do not think that 45C4(a) > can be applied in that way. If a player names > one card while designating another some > other way that is clearly an improper play. > +=+ Greetings. This is not what declarer has done. He has designated rank by saying 'ace' and he has designated suit by pointing to the spade suit. He has designated only one card and the call of the card is not incomplete so that Law 26 is not involved. What is more I can testify that such has been the ruling since the 1950's at least. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 22:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GC9Vo01453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:09:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GC9NH01441 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:09:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9GC3t205419; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:03:55 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9GC3sL20948; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:03:54 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:03:54 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011017123300.00a9b2d0@pop.ulb.ac.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 Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 10:56 16/10/2001 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > >won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > > > > K Q x J x x > > A Q x > > K Q x x x x J x x x x > > A x x K J 9 > > > > > >West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer > >now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about > >his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get > >the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > >obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > > > >Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > > AG : no. It is obvious that he didn't know he had to take it. How could he > know he would end with 11 tricks, since the position of the CQ wasn't known > ? Clearly, he didn't realise the need for a finesse, and only the objection > made him awake. I agree with that, but > I'd be ready to pretend that he has put a club with his spades, and thought > about a double ruff. In this case, we may demand that he play two top clubs. suppose we do pretend that declarer thinks his hand is K Q 3 {S|C}2 A K Q x x x x A x he wins the return, gives up a spade, wins the return, cashes spades and leads a 4th spade. He then realizes that this is in fact the C2. At this point, it would be irrational NOT to take a club finesse. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 22:28:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GCSNU04899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:28:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow028o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GCSHH04887 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:28:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from pcow028m.blueyonder.net ([127.0.0.1]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:22:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c1563d$c26cf980$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: [BLML] Posting on Blml Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:26:19 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The "Played Card" thread seems to have gotten a bit out of hand Those of us who have been here along time are used to insults flying around - people taking offence and threatening never to read/post etc ever again Everyone knows Kojak is a "Grumpy Old Sod" - (I didn't get where I am today without being a GOS") ( Or should that be GOD???? :)) Gentlemen (oops now I've insulted all the ladies too) please - put the odd smiley in your post One prerequisite for being a TD is being thick-skinned enough to deal with the odd insult (I didn't get where I am today without being a Grumpy Old Rhinocerous) (My favourite insult was from Tony Forrester to DWS - after David had made a rather convoluted case for his brilliant ruling - Tony - always modest and shy said "Well, one or two people think I know a little about the game, but I haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about" (oh and he lost his appeal) (One player at our National Trials a week or so ago after I had made a particularly subtle and eminently correct weighted 12C3 ruling said "Now I know why people become terrorists" I didn't really understand this but I'm sure it was rude) Ed don't get upset - we all love you Vitold don't get stressed - it's bad for your heart Kojak it's about time you said what you mean instead of beating around the bush :)) Ton I see you've already tried to pour some oil on troubled waters - good on you I (mostly) greatly enjoy BLML and I've learnt a lot here - ok if i say something people disagree with I might have fun poked out of me but that's nothing compared with what players say (or indeed of course what we Tds say about players) Let's keep it clean chaps ( and chapesses) Law 74A mike -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 22:42:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GCelR06963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:40:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost4.onet.pl (ghost4.onet.pl [213.180.128.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GCeeH06950 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:40:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:2308 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost4.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:34:37 +0200 Message-ID: <001301c1563e$196a9120$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:28:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Claim and finesse > > >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > K Q x J x x > A Q x > K Q x x x x J x x x x > A x x K J 9 > > > West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer > now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about > his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get > the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > > Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > > Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs > (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way > back). Same thing again: L70E. We don't allow declarer to finesse unless playing clubs playing clubs from the top is irrational. So is it? I don't think it is for the man who failed to see that he might lose a trick in clubs at all. Let me emphasize that the definition of "irrational" in TFLB *doesn't depend* on "the class of player involved". So for me it is one down but I expect a lengthy and sophisticated debate on what should be a simple ruling if that "irrational" stuff were removed from TFLB. I'll mention DBClaims every time a problem like this comes up; until someone gets fed up with it and I'll get shot. :-) Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.html ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 22:56:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GCsOC10038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:54:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GCsHH10020 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:54:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-51-71.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.51.71] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tTeN-000Pc7-00; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:48:52 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:45:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 15 October 2001 09:23 Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action > > > The > > offending side, however, should be awarded > > the score that it would have been allotted as > > the normal consequence of its infraction. > > I cannot believe this means NS +100 > Without the infraction, NS would not have bid 5S, > so the result stays at -300. (so +300 for them) > +=+ Now let me understand this. You are the Director; you happen to be standing in the vicinity and as they score the board you hear West say to East: "I am not really sure whether I was entitled to bid five after your hesitation." With Law 81C6 in mind you decide to explore the facts. Indeed West has used UI to get to 5S and the score he has entered is NS +100. Since NS -300 is the "normal consequence of the infraction" you adjust the EW score from -100 to +300. Is that so? Or do you notice that whilst "had the irregularity not occurred" applies to the "most favourable result that was likely" awarded to the NOS, the "at all probable" result awarded to the OS has no restriction to circumstances where the irregularity has not occurred? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 23:28:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GDQXo12229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:26:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GDQQH12225 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:26:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA22324; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:17:46 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA17181; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:20:54 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011017151821.00aa2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:20:48 +0200 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011017123300.00a9b2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:03 16/10/2001 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > At 10:56 16/10/2001 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > > > > > K Q x J x x > > > A Q x > > > K Q x x x x J x x x x > > > A x x K J 9 > > > > > >suppose we do pretend that declarer thinks his hand is > > K Q 3 {S|C}2 > A > K Q x x x x > A x > >he wins the return, gives up a spade, wins the return, cashes spades and >leads a 4th spade. He then realizes that this is in fact the C2. At this >point, it would be irrational NOT to take a club finesse. AG : granted, but the play could go otherwise : no spade play, but first AC, C3 to the King, CJ ruffed ... no more ? Oops ... Why should declarer play spades before clubs ? The contrary would not be irrational, would it ? Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 16 23:34:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GDVHh12242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:31:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GDVDH12238 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.81]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLAW9O00.BKT for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:32:12 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-82.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.82]) by psmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8410/5731693); 16 Oct 2001 23:32:12 Message-ID: <009601c15645$e7d7db60$52dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:24:37 +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 Trevor Strickland wrote: >Chas Fellows wrote: >> L46A says: >> >> "Proper form for Designating Dummy's Card >> When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should >> clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card." >> >> ISTM this should logically be part of L45 not L46, but whether >> or not it is in the right place, it defines the correct procedure >> very clearly. It uses >> "should", and the introduction (Scope and Interpretation) tells >> us that "failure to do it is an infraction of Law". > >This seems a harsh interpretation of the law. Does this mean >that mean that I would be denied the pleasures of bridge after >a laryngectomy or when visiting the Planet Zog (where I don't >speak the language) because I would be unable to "clearly >state both the suit and rank of the desired card" even >though I would be perfectly able to "otherwise designate" ? Welcome to BLML Trevor. It's not normally quite so dramatic here. If you have any cats and dogs, most BLMLers register their names by sending a post to BLML. The "declarer should" part of L46A applies only to the preceding clause "When calling a card". In cases of laryngeal breakdown and the like, declarer may follow L45B's procedure: "In playing from dummy's hand declarer may, if necessary, pick up the desired card himself.", "if necessary" referring to laryngitis etc. So there is no problem. Peter Gill Sydney, Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 00:04:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GE4Tf12265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:04:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01ps.bigpond.com (mta01ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.133] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GE4PH12261 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:04:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.81]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLAXT100.120 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:05:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-82.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.82]) by psmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8410/5755220); 17 Oct 2001 00:05:25 Message-ID: <01d501c1564a$8b7bce80$52dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Posting on Blml Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:57:49 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mike Amos wrote: >Gentlemen (oops now I've insulted all the ladies too) please - >put the odd smiley in your post > >Tony Forrester ... Tony - always modest and shy :)) >said "Well, one Tony himself :)) >or two people Has Tony been cloned? :)) >think I know a little about the game, but ... Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 00:45:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GEenh12301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:40:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f212.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GEeiH12297 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:40:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 07:35:15 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.245 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:35:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.245] From: "Alan Hill" To: gester@lineone.net, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:35:15 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2001 14:35:15.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[C566D360:01C1564F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I also first heard it Kerry -> Cork but I doubt that was the origin. and we are fond of a good joke even if against us, I've also heard a good joke or two from you as (winning) npc at Lady Milne dinners. I believe it is against the law to tell 'Irish' jokes in some London boroughs but not in Ireland. >From: "Grattan Endicott" >To: "Alan Hill" , >Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem >Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:47:40 +0100 > > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"The disadvantage of men not knowing the >past is that they do not know the present." > (G.K.Chesterton) >+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + >----- Original Message ----- >From: Alan Hill >To: ; >Sent: 15 October 2001 08:57 >Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem > > > > Are you afraid of us Irish? > > Did you not hear of the Irishman who moved to > > England and raised the average IQ of both > > countries? > > >+=+ When I first read this joke, over 30 years ago >in County Kerry, it was a Kerry man who moved >to Cork. The Irish are very polite to strangers. > It was about the same time that I saw a headline >in an Irish paper saying that the Garda had quelled a >riot at Port Laoise Gaol. Since only six inmates were >involved I made a note that a riot needs at most six >Irishmen. > There was also the young lady who was knocked >down by a runaway horse in Killarney, reported on the >radio to be "in a stable condition". Humour comes >naturally in that country. ~ G ~ +=+ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 01:27:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GFQvs12329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:26:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GFQqH12325 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:26:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA26855 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08143 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110161521.LAA08143@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > I cannot believe this means NS +100 > Without the infraction, NS would not have bid 5S, so the > result stays at -300. (so +300 for them) Why can't you believe it? For the offending side, L12C2 omits the key words "had the irregularity not occurred." Thus we are certainly allowed to consider results obtained with the infraction included. We are, of course, not allowed to consider any such results for the NOS (at least under L12C2). I haven't kept score. Are we reaching consensus? It would be awfully nice to do so. (I thought the Tenerife appeals had strong precedents that the NOS keep the table result, at least in cases where the NOS were headed for a good result absent IWorG action.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 01:55:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GFtd817091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:55:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GFtWH17068 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:55:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.36]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9GDWaT05660 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:32:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCBF06B.83BBC61F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:31:39 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Another New Zealand problem References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011016114513.00a6f700@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > At 08:57 15/10/2001 +0100, Alan Hill wrote: > >Are you afraid of us Irish? > >Did you not hear of the Irishman who moved to England and raised the > >average IQ of both countries? > > AG : nice example of what mathematicians call 'defector effect', not unlike > the classical 'structural effect'. I must remember to include it in my next > course - changing the nationalities according to the sensibility of the > audience. > Alain, in our area the joke is best told by a dutchman about a Limburger moving from Maastricht to Hasselt. (Limburgers, on both sides of the border, have the reputation generally given to Irish and Belgians). -- 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 Oct 17 01:55:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GFtmC17132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:55:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GFtdH17094 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:55:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.36]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9GDWcT05683 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:32:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:39:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As usual, David sees a small whole in the Laws and advocates using an elephant to stop it up. David Burn wrote: > > anyone's mind about the card he has requested from dummy. As usual, the > relevant Laws would cause no problem if they read as follows: > > "Declarer specifies a card to be played from dummy by naming both the > suit and the rank of the card, or by physically detaching the card from > dummy. If he fails in this respect, either defender may require the play > of any card from dummy that may legally be played to the current trick." > > Of course, they wouldn't like this at Eric Landau's club. I can't help > that - I would ask only: is anyone happy with the current situation > where a man asks this way, points that way, and then summons some > hapless individual to sort out the resulting mess to the disgruntlement > of all concerned? > What disgruntlement ? I am quite certain that a majority on this list sees no disgruntlement once they rule that defender, who has done nothing wrong, is allowed to take his card back. No need for a change in the Laws, David ! -- 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 Oct 17 02:09:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GG98720514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:09:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net [194.6.96.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GG91H20493 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:09:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from k6b8p4 (tnt-14-159.easynet.co.uk [212.134.24.159]) by tvrelay.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 8745767470 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:02:30 +0100 (BST) From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:55:50 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson writes: >> Brambledown writes >> ISTM much more likely that he heard declarer call >> "Ace", assumed this meant CA and played a club >> before noticing that dummy had played a different Ace. > Exactly. Very silly. If you truly believe this action to be 'very silly', we are talking a different language. IMO 'silly' might be more aptly applied to the TD if he wished to penalise in these circumstances. 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 Oct 17 02:09:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GG9hS20674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:09:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailinves.inves.es ([195.61.25.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GG9aH20637 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:09:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from frodo ([195.61.25.1]) by mailinves.inves.es with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1875.185.18); Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:59:23 +0200 Message-ID: <001001c1565c$1cf0af00$02001aac@jazztel.es> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Miguel_Mart=EDnez?= To: "foro reglamento" Subject: [BLML] Opening lead Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:03:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1566C.DFFC5FC0" ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1566C.DFFC5FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, here is a stranger problem: South is declarer in 4 S. South informs wrongly to East that it's his = turn to lead. East sais that it is not his turn. South, not waiting for = the lead, spred his hand on the table.=20 What's your rule? ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1566C.DFFC5FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all, here is a stranger = problem:
 
South is declarer in 4 S. South informs = wrongly to=20 East that it's his turn to lead. East sais that it is not his turn. = South, not=20 waiting for the lead, spred his hand on the table.
 
What's your = rule?
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1566C.DFFC5FC0-- --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 02:26:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GGPmW24536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:25:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost2.onet.pl (ghost2.onet.pl [213.180.128.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GGPbH24503 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:4 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost2.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:20:01 +0200 Message-ID: <00b101c1565d$90d01db0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:13:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > As usual, David sees a small whole in the Laws and advocates > using an elephant to stop it up. > > David Burn wrote: > > > > anyone's mind about the card he has requested from dummy. As usual, the > > relevant Laws would cause no problem if they read as follows: > > > > "Declarer specifies a card to be played from dummy by naming both the > > suit and the rank of the card, or by physically detaching the card from > > dummy. If he fails in this respect, either defender may require the play > > of any card from dummy that may legally be played to the current trick." > > > > Of course, they wouldn't like this at Eric Landau's club. I can't help > > that - I would ask only: is anyone happy with the current situation > > where a man asks this way, points that way, and then summons some > > hapless individual to sort out the resulting mess to the disgruntlement > > of all concerned? > > > > What disgruntlement ? > > I am quite certain that a majority on this list sees no > disgruntlement once they rule that defender, who has done > nothing wrong, is allowed to take his card back. > No need for a change in the Laws, David ! > It is the declarer who shouldn't be able to take his card back. He played the cA; wants to take it back and now the Laws come to the rescue. Declarer didn't bother to name the rank *and* the suit of the card; didn't know the rules (because the rules say that in such a case the ace in the recently played suit should be played) and still he has a chance to take his card back. Why? Defender doesn't have such a chance if he pulls the wrong card. Pièce touchée, pièce jouée - this is what they do in chess and this is what we should do in bridge: get rid of the mind-reading nonsense. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.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 Oct 17 02:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GGVex26054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:31:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GGVYH26036 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:31:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA00881 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA08923 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:26:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110161626.MAA08923@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Meanwhile, if declarer points firmly to the > Spade suit and says 'ace', in my view if he has a > spade RHO's club is an attempt to revoke. Let me ask the experienced TD's a few questions, if I may. Maybe the answers are obvious to them but not to the rest of us. Grattan says 'if'. Suppose the TD arrives at the table, and South (declarer) says "I said Ace and pointed at the spade ace." What further investigation, if any, would you undertake? Suppose you are satisfied that South did as he said, but East says "I was looking at my cards and thinking about the deal and didn't see any gesture. When he said ace, I naturally assumed ace of clubs." Do you ask further questions? Suppose you believe East. Do you let him change his play? If so, is the club AI to anyone? What if East says he was looking at Wendy? Any difference? > I need at least a sliver of uncertainty to bring in > Law 45C4(b). But I stand ready to discern it in > the slightest twitch. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 02:37:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GGbeQ27497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GGbRH27456 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:37:28 +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 f9GGVQL26081 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:31:26 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011016112000.00a0d9a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:26:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011017123300.00a9b2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 10/17/01 +0200, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:56 16/10/2001 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >> >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have >>won medals in European championships and stronger events. >> >> >> K Q x J x x >> A Q x >> K Q x x x x J x x x x >> A x x K J 9 >> >> >>West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer >>now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about >>his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get >>the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll >>obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. This statement can be ignored, I think. >>Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > >AG : no. It is obvious that he didn't know he had to take it. How could he >know he would end with 11 tricks, since the position of the CQ wasn't >known ? Clearly, he didn't realise the need for a finesse, and only the >objection made him awake. I quite agree. But that, by itself, doesn't answer the question, since if it is irrational for him to not take the finesse, he can be deemed to take it. >I'd be ready to pretend that he has put a club with his spades, and >thought about a double ruff. In this case, we may demand that he play two >top clubs. I would not object to anyone who ruled that it was not irrational to play the top two clubs before realizing he was a trick short, but I would vehemently object to anyone who ruled against me on the grounds that I would think a club was a spade and play accordingly. Why not just rule that I would mistake a club in my hand for a spade and revoke for penalty tricks, too? I think since on this hand there are two possible plays that yield the loss of a trick [playing the AK and taking the double finesse], I would rule the trick lost. I think cashing the AK is probably irrational, but I'm not at all sure the other play is irrational [though markedly inferior]. But I don't have to rule that declarer can't tell what suits he holds to do this. >Best regards, > > Alain. Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 02:47:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GGlNX29792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:47:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GGlCH29742 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:47:12 +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 f9GGf0L00196; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:41:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011016112723.00a0f310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:36:16 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: In-Reply-To: <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:28 AM 10/16/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: [snipping the part with which I agree, namely that a card once named _or otherwise designated_ by declarer is deemed played regardless of what dummy does.] > >From what I can gather at the moment, though, the declarer asked for an >ace, without specifying which ace; an opponent, thinking that the Without _verbally_ specifying which ace. :) >ace of >clubs was "played", followed suit; it then transpired that the ace >declarer had in mind was the ace of spades. All I would say about that >is this: there is no excuse whatever for a declarer who leaves doubt in >anyone's mind about the card he has requested from dummy. As usual, Well, he _pointed at the card_. What baffles me, and DWS, is how anyone could have any doubts in his mind about which card declarer was requesting when he pointed at the card. Now I agree that if the original case was poorly stated, and what in fact happened was that declarer just said "Ace", RHO played a club, and declarer _then_ pointed at the ace of spades, then we have a very different case. But in the case as described declarer _pointed at the card_. In any case... >the >relevant Laws would cause no problem if they read as follows: > >"Declarer specifies a card to be played from dummy by naming both the >suit and the rank of the card, or by physically detaching the card from >dummy. If he fails in this respect, either defender may require the play >of any card from dummy that may legally be played to the current trick." This would, indeed, solve this problem. As would hanging declarer by the neck until dead. >Of course, they wouldn't like this at Eric Landau's club. I can't Nor mine. >help >that - I would ask only: is anyone happy with the current situation >where a man asks this way, points that way, and then summons some >hapless individual to sort out the resulting mess to the disgruntlement >of all concerned? I myself am happy with the current situation. The number of cases where this causes any real problems _that would have been solved by a harsher law_ is so tiny compared to the naumber of cases where problems would be caused by a harsher law, that frankly this doesn't bother me in the slightest. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 02:48:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GGmPe00048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 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 cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GGmKH00038 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:48:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id MAA01544 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA09044 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:42:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110161642.MAA09044@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > I think cashing the AK is probably irrational, but I'm > not at all sure the other play is irrational [though > markedly inferior]. But I don't have to rule that > declarer can't tell what suits he holds to do this. Quite. There's also a club-heart squeeze (probably positional, depending on what declarer's highest club spot is). Anyhow, the judgment hinges on whether the alternate lines are irrational or merely inferior. Another thought is that declarer might somehow be able to show that he knows that North has the C-Q. If so, I think the claim stands, although not mentioning the finesse in the first place was very careless. (I am sure DB will rule against declarer, but it seems irrational not to take the finesse if you know it will win.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 03:04:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GH4PH03287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:04:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GH4JH03282 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:04:20 +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 JAA19839; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:58:53 -0700 Message-Id: <200110161658.JAA19839@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:26:10 EDT." <200110161626.MAA08923@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:58:50 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Let me ask the experienced TD's a few questions, if I may. Maybe the > answers are obvious to them but not to the rest of us. > > Grattan says 'if'. Suppose the TD arrives at the table, and South > (declarer) says "I said Ace and pointed at the spade ace." What further > investigation, if any, would you undertake? > > Suppose you are satisfied that South did as he said, but East says "I > was looking at my cards and thinking about the deal and didn't see any > gesture. When he said ace, I naturally assumed ace of clubs." Do you > ask further questions? Suppose you believe East. Do you let him > change his play? If so, is the club AI to anyone? > > What if East says he was looking at Wendy? Any difference? Well, I'm not an experienced TD, but I can say with certainty that if East made this last statement, I would need to look long and hard at the evidence. :) -- 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 Oct 17 03:14:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GHDxM03323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:13:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GHDrH03319 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:13:53 +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 f9GH7YL12473; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:07:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:02:48 -0500 To: "Volker R. Walther" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: BLML In-Reply-To: <3BCAD80D.8FD623BC@vwalther.de> References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:35 PM 10/15/01 +0200, Volker R. Walther wrote: >Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ This is the point I was making when I so > > rudely interrupted myself. If, as I understand, > > declarer said 'Ace' and pointed clearly to the > > Spades, he has played the spade Ace. The > > suit is 'otherwise designated' per 45C4(a). > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Sorry, but I disagree. I do not think that 45C4(a) can be applied in >that way. If a player names one card while designating another some >other way that is clearly an improper play. I agree. Of course, this declarer didn't do that. :) >If an opponent acts that way (e.g. showing one card while naming >another) this would be an infraction and he would produce >penalty-cards that way. Well, I think it would produce UI, not penalty cards. And the card _shown_ would be the card played, not the card named. >If declarer calls for the 'Ace of Spades' while pointing to the Ace of >clubs his intention is not clear (incontrovertible). I think we I agree. He didn't do that. >should >not penalize a RHO who did not recognize this infraction of rules. I agree. >The 'or' in L45C4a is an exclusive or; designating and naming >different cards is not allowed. I _might_ even agree with that. But if I do, it strengthens my case and weakens yours. Because if this is true, then saying "Ace" while clearly pointing at the Ace of trump obviously 'designates' the Ace of trump. >Here the problem is more difficult because the incomplete naming of >the card is not in contradiction to the card otherwise designated. No, here the problem is much easier because of that very fact. :) >But if we agree that it is not allowed to name one card and designate >another the situation becomes much clearer. RHO hears that declarer >names a card. (The call is incomplete but unique according to L46B.) >So there is no need for him to look which card is designated >otherwise. Why on earth should we think that? a) Surely a complete designation should take precedence over an incomplete one, if we allow only one designation. b) L46B "completes" this designation _only if declarer's other intention is not incontrovertible_. Since this declarer's intention is as incontrovertible as any intention is ever likely to be, RHO _cannot_ validly assume that the Ace of Clubs has been named. It has just occurred to me [I am a bit slow], that I have a further problem with all this. When I am defending a hand, I actually attempt to figure out what declarer wants done. Your post, and the posts of several others, suggests that if I were RHO in this situation I should play a club even if I clearly see declarer pointing at the A of trump, because I know how L46 tries to deal with ambiguous, incomplete designations and I know that in such cases a club would be required. Several of you have even suggested that bridge would be somehow _better_ if we forced declarer to play the Ace of clubs now. Why? Why on earth does anyone _want_ to force declarer to play a card he had no intention of playing, just because he carelessly said only "Ace" while pointing at the card he wanted to play? That isn't what I call bridge. In fact, if declarer makes an incomplete designation at my table I usually wait for him to complete it, or for a few seconds after dummy plays the [L46-required] card, to make sure that's what declarer wanted. I'm sure many on this list would say that this means I am not playing bridge, since technically it would be illegal for me to allow declarer to specify his card more clearly later. I do not think it is bridge to require the play of a card declarer _obviously and manifestly_ didn't want to play. >I only would think that the gesture (Pointing to the Ace) is of >importance if declarers call contains the information, that is >accomplished by a gesture. "Play _this_ Ace, please". On the other Suppose declarer had said nothing at all, but had unmistakeably pointed to the Ace of trump. Would you say that no card has been designated at all? I would say that he has designated the Ace of trump. So in this case I would say the pointing has designated the Ace of trump, and the words in no way contradict that designation. Notice that the law in no ways suggests that naming takes precedence over other designations. >hand simply calling 'Ace, please' is transferring two informations: >1.) "Declarer wants dummy to play an Ace" >2.) "Declarer has named a card according to L46 B 3" No, he has conveyed only one piece of information. '2' simply tells us what we do if we can't figure out which Ace declarer means to play. >If declarer points to a special Ace,. that is an additonal designation >of a card, not part of the naming. Not part of the naming, no--it is a separate designation of a card, complete in itself. Or, if you prefer, the naming of the 'Ace' is filling out the designation which the pointing began. [Pointing at the trump suit would be an ambiguous designation--saying 'Ace' makes it unambiguous.] >Greetings > >Volker Walther Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 03:17:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GHHoJ03335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:17:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GHHXH03331 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:17:38 +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 f9GHBQL14154; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:11:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011016120347.00a14c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:06:42 -0500 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <00b101c1565d$90d01db0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9GHHkH03332 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:13 PM 10/16/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Pièce touchée, pièce jouée - this is what they do in chess and this >is what we should do in bridge: get rid of the mind-reading nonsense. Mind-reading? When declarer points to the card he wants to play you call it 'mind-reading' to think that he is trying to play that card? > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 03:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GHJUP03347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:19:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GHJOH03343 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 03:19:25 +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 KAA20039; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:13:59 -0700 Message-Id: <200110161713.KAA20039@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:03:35 +0200." <001001c1565c$1cf0af00$02001aac@jazztel.es> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:13:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jose Miguel Martinez (sorry, it's hard to get the accents in with my primitive software) wrote: > Hi all, here is a stranger problem: > > South is declarer in 4 S. South informs wrongly to East that it's his = > turn to lead. East sais that it is not his turn. South, not waiting for = > the lead, spred his hand on the table.=20 > > What's your rule? I don't think there's anything to rule, since nobody committed any infraction. Since nobody has yet led, we're still in the auction period. There are some circumstances in which a player may yet change his call; if that happens, the auction continues, and Law 24 applies, so that North will be required to pass at his next turn. Assuming this doesn't happen, though, South picks up his hand, and West leads. There's no penalty exposing all his cards, except for the obvious "penalty" that East and West now get to defend double-dummy. Law 54A obviously doesn't apply since nobody led. -- 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 Oct 17 05:07:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GJ72J03404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 05:07:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m02.mx.aol.com (imo-m02.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GJ6uH03400 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 05:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id 4.f8.1113a173 (4543); Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:01:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:01:21 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Posting on Blml To: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f8.1113a173.28fdde01_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_f8.1113a173.28fdde01_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/16/01 8:24:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mamos@blueyonder.co.uk writes: > Let's keep it clean chaps ( and chapesses) Law 74A > > Hear! Hear! And here we go again!!!!!!!!!! Hey man, Law 74 is probably good guidance for general living and for posting on the BLML, but it is use of the Laws beyond their purpose. Just like I can't find a reference to the TD in that Law, I can't find a reference to BLMLers. Too many years ago, and for too long I had it ground into me by Edgar that the Laws were to provide guidance in a certain manner. Where there is a general Law and a specific Law that both appear to apply to a situation, the specific Law is the one that governs. We find arguments posted that there are conflicting laws -- when asked, Edgar's response was ".....if you have a specific law that tells you what to do, why are you looking elsewhere? If the specfic Law wants you to go elsewhere it will so state." Looking at our present Laws, admitting to their sometimes misuse of words for which WBFLC (and the Zonal and other LCs also) have given interpretations, I've stumbled my way through over 40 years of TD'ing with relative success using that guidance. The players generally approve -- the pundits, sages, and perfectionists may not (and hopefully will contribute to improvement). G.O.S = Gentle Old Soldier aka Kojak --part1_f8.1113a173.28fdde01_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/16/01 8:24:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mamos@blueyonder.co.uk writes:






Let's keep it clean chaps ( and chapesses)  Law 74A



Hear!  Hear!  

And here we go again!!!!!!!!!!   Hey man, Law 74 is probably good guidance for general living and for posting on the BLML, but it is use of the Laws beyond their purpose.  Just like I can't find a reference to the TD in that Law, I can't find a reference to BLMLers.

Too many years ago, and for too long  I had it ground into me by Edgar that the Laws were to provide guidance in a certain manner.  Where there is a general Law and a specific Law that both appear to apply to a situation, the specific Law is the one that  governs.  We find arguments posted that there are conflicting laws -- when asked, Edgar's response was ".....if you have a specific law that tells you what to do, why are you looking elsewhere? If the specfic Law wants you to go elsewhere it will so state."  
Looking at our present Laws, admitting to their sometimes misuse of words for which WBFLC (and the Zonal and other LCs also) have given interpretations, I've stumbled my way through over 40 years of TD'ing with relative success using that guidance.  The players generally approve -- the pundits, sages, and perfectionists may not (and hopefully will contribute to improvement).

G.O.S  = Gentle Old  Soldier   aka   Kojak --part1_f8.1113a173.28fdde01_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 05:30:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GJU4103443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 05:30:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GJTwH03439 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 05:29:59 +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 f9GJOYB17947 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:24:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002001c15678$17c909c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:14:16 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > > The > > > offending side, however, should be awarded > > > the score that it would have been allotted as > > > the normal consequence of its infraction. > > > > I cannot believe this means NS +100 > > Without the infraction, NS would not have bid 5S, > > so the result stays at -300. (so +300 for them) > > > Since NS -300 is the "normal consequence > of the infraction" you adjust the EW score from > -100 to +300. Is that so? Or do you notice that > whilst "had the irregularity not occurred" applies > to the "most favourable result that was likely" > awarded to the NOS, the "at all probable" result > awarded to the OS has no restriction to > circumstances where the irregularity has not > occurred? Herman did slip a little, there, since the OS adjustment does not include the "absent the infraction" criterion that applies to the OS. He has the right answer, obtained with the wrong logic. The 5S contract made because of terrible defense, possibly involving a revoke. While adequate defense may have been "at all probable" *a priori*, it didn't happen. The play of the cards is cast in concrete, not subject to modification (assuming it had no relation to the infraction). Consider that the play of the cards was not changed for the NOS, even though it was not at all likely to go the way it did. The principle also applies to bidding. N/S use Blackwood in a competitive auction, stopping at 5S because two aces are missing. E/W take a 6C sacrifice that should be doubled for +800 N/S, but North irrationally bids 6S, doubled down one. The 6C bid was illegal, based on UI. N/S keep their result, but do E/W get -800 because 6C should have been doubled? No, they get -650. You can't assume a double that wasn't made. But suppose even 5S was not makeable because of bad distribution. Now what? Then the OS gets -300 in 6C, not -800, because 6C wasn't doubled. It didn't happen. As I see it, but with not as much confidence as I may be exhibiting. However, an opposite view would get into play and bidding analyses that would often require a crystal ball, with "the level of player involved" no doubt getting into the act. I prefer my view, if only for that reason. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 06:27:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GKQTr03476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 06:26:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GKQNH03472 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 06:26:24 +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 f9GKKxB20003 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007f01c1567f$f59c96c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:16:40 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > K Q x J x x > A Q x > K Q x x x x J x x x x > A x x K J 9 > > > West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. > Declarer now plays a trump won by north, south following. > While north thinks about his next move, declarer shows his > hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get the SA". NS object > and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > > Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > > Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in > clubs (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the > 10 on the way back). > I don't have an answer. How much simpler it was before the unnecessary complication of appending "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational," to L70E in 1997. Before that, without a statement you could only take a proven (or bound to be proven) finesse, and the difficult task of determining what is irrational did not enter the picture. The BLML responses to Henk's question only enforce my opinion that the change to L70E was unwise. Revisions to the Laws should cater to simplicity, not to complexity. Those who do not make adequate claim statements deserve no special consideration. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 08:22:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GMLgp19056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:21:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GMLWH19015 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:21:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15tcVG-000BQG-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:16:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:41:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <20011011223440.EBDJ24386.web2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> <005601c155eb$c2f50e80$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <005601c155eb$c2f50e80$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Going through this thread one at a time: > >DWS: > >> We allow insufficient designations always. The defender is just very >> silly and has paid the price. > >It is not clear to me that we "allow insufficient designations always". There are Laws to tell you what an insufficient designation means, and I have never heard of anyone penalised for an insufficient designation: have you? >If we do, then assuredly we should not; declarer (when the lead is in >dummy) should call for a card from dummy by naming its suit and its >rank. After all, in the days when bridge was a game, declarer would have >to physically pick out a card from dummy with his fingers. Why should a >defender be disadvantaged because a declarer can (apparently) now just >say "ace"? That is a different matter, whether we should allow them. But a defender is only disadvantaged when he is not paying attention as well. Recently a view was expressed that when a team has accepted for a number of boards its opponents' alerting in a way not permitted by the regulations then they cannot claim damage because an alert was given in the way that had been done throughout [was it an appeal from Tenerife?]. This seems a similar approach. I know you would prefer that everyone does everything perfectly or gets screwed. Maybe it would be a better game, I do not know, but that is not the way it is being run at the moment. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 08:22:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GMLle19072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:21:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GMLXH19016 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:21:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15tcVH-000BQH-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:16:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 13:14:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >Nowhere in any manual on "How to Drive" >does DWS's sentence appear; I never suggested it did. > it is something that he has constructed to >bolster a specious argument. It is something I thought of to try to indicate what I meant. What is wrong with that? In what way is that "specious"? When I argue I try to make it easy for people to see what I am talking about, and certainly one way I try to do so is to think of an equivalent situation for comparison. This is what I did this time. Why is this wrong? Are you suggesting I should use words that people do not understand fully so they will think I am right without understanding? I prefer people who read my stuff to understand it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 09:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GNLKA19854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:21:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9GNLEH19850 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:21:15 +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 f9GNFnB24877; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:15:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b801c15698$5a57b640$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> <002001c15678$17c909c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:06:07 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Herman did slip a little, there, since the OS adjustment does not include > the "absent the infraction" criterion that applies to the OS. He has the > right answer, obtained with the wrong logic. "OS" stands for "other side" in this context. :)) Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 09:53:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GNqCc19872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:52:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GNq7H19868 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:52:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.132] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011016234639.KVMK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]>; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:46:39 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: Schoderb@aol.com, vitold@elnet.msk.ru, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ereppert@rochester.rr.com Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Open Letter Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:46:39 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=____1003275999910_Um2Mqu8vRf" Message-Id: <20011016234639.KVMK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=____1003275999910_Um2Mqu8vRf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > Date: 2001/10/16 Tue PM 11:36:42 GMT+12:00 > To: vitold@elnet.msk.ru, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, ereppert@rochester.rr.com > Subject: Re: [BLML] Open Letter > I strongly recommend David Burn's postings of 15 > October to anyone who would like to not only know what the present Law says, > but also contains a recommmendation for change in future Laws. > > Best regards, Kojak But David's post does not contain any information about what to do under the current laws about the actual situation of an incomplete designation and then a defender following to a different suit than declarer intended. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 ------=____1003275999910_Um2Mqu8vRf Content-Type: text/html; name="replyAll" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="replyAll" Gee, and I thouight I was being nice!

If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry. It was wrong of me to pick your posting as an example by responding to Ton's response to you.  Please don't let my "harsh" words disuade you from continuing to post and have your rightful opinions. You  are not one on which I use the delete key.

As for you, Mr. Vitold, a few comments, hopefully accepted by you in the spirit of discussion.  Which, -- discussion -- IMHO should usually lead to education and admission of error when the learning process has been exercised. I find very few of the posters willing to admit that they have learned something by finding that their opinions are in error.  Herman  has done so, and a few others, including me.  It is the real value of discussion when one learns from others.  As I am learning by writing less harshly, and less arrogantly. As to your remakrs about my performance let me pleasantly say the following.  Law 74 uses the word "player(s)" throughout.  It stretches my imagination to apply it to me for dislike of my posting.  Your comments about Lille and the disaster in the Pairs Chapionships can only be the result of a complete ignorance on your part of what happened, and harshly judgemental.  I strongly suggest that you might! find out what happened before you attack so vehemently. My acceptance of the ultimate resposibility is what I would expect of any experienced, qualified Chief Tournament Director.

I'm glad and sorry that I gave you the opportunity to vent your spleen and  set me straight.  I do learn from being chastised, but usually more when the facts are correct. Be assured that I feel far from "sinless."  My life has had too many occasions where sinning could be properly ascribed. I would recommend you leave that judgement to my God.

Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted.  My point, poorly stated, was that it is frustrating to see a thread continue with positions  repeatedly stated,   lack of comprehension of the present laws wording, and lack of consensus or conclusion.  I strongly recommend David Burn's postings of 15 October to anyone who would like to not only know what the present Law says, but also contains a recommmendation for change in future Laws.

Best regards,    Kojak
------=____1003275999910_Um2Mqu8vRf-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 09:58:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9GNuvO19885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:56:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9GNurH19881 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.132] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011016235125.KYBW17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]>; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:51:25 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Volker R. Walther" , "BLML" Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:51:25 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011016235125.KYBW17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Date: 2001/10/16 Tue AM 01:55:52 GMT+12:00 > To: "Volker R. Walther" , > "BLML" > Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > > > +=+ Greetings. This is not what declarer has > done. He has designated rank by saying 'ace' > and he has designated suit by pointing to the > spade suit. Pointing is not an official designation but may provide some evidence as to declarer's intention. > He has designated only one card and the call > of the card is not incomplete so that Law 26 > is not involved. > What is more I can testify that such has > been the ruling since the 1950's at least. > ~ 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/ > Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 10:05:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H03i919901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:03:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H03dH19897 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.132] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011016235812.LBRG17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:58:12 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:58:12 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011016235812.LBRG17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Herman De Wael > Date: 2001/10/16 Tue PM 08:39:07 GMT+12:00 > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > As usual, David sees a small whole in the Laws and advocates > using an elephant to stop it up. lol > What disgruntlement ? > > I am quite certain that a majority on this list sees no > disgruntlement once they rule that defender, who has done > nothing wrong, is allowed to take his card back. Has defender done nothing wrong - i am now wondering whether defender could take more notice (that is not 'insufficient attention'). > No need for a change in the Laws, David ! Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 10:08:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H074n19913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:07:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H070H19909 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:07:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.132] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011017000132.LDKK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:01:32 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:01:32 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011017000132.LDKK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu > Date: 2001/10/17 Wed AM 04:26:10 GMT+12:00 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > > What if East says he was looking at Wendy? Any difference? > Instant expulsion. I don't allow lesbians in my game. :-) Joke, tongue in cheek Take seriously at your own risk. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 10:12:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H0AtB19925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:10:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H0AoH19921 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:10:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.132] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011017000522.LGAB17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:05:22 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:05:22 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011017000522.LGAB17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Grant Sterling > Date: 2001/10/17 Wed AM 04:36:16 GMT+12:00 > To: "David Burn" > CC: > Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > Well, he _pointed at the card_. What baffles me, and > DWS, is how anyone could have any doubts in his mind about > which card declarer was requesting when he pointed at the card. > Now I agree that if the original case was poorly stated, and > what in fact happened was that declarer just said "Ace", RHO > played a club, and declarer _then_ pointed at the ace of spades, > then we have a very different case. But in the case as described > declarer _pointed at the card_. > In any case... It was agreed at the table that declarer named ace and pointed at trumps but the defender did not see this action. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 10:13:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H0CFP19941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:12:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H0C6H19933 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:12:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15teEI-00047o-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:02:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead References: <001001c1565c$1cf0af00$02001aac@jazztel.es> <200110161713.KAA20039@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200110161713.KAA20039@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >Jose Miguel Martinez (sorry, it's hard to get the accents in with my >primitive software) wrote: > >> Hi all, here is a stranger problem: >> >> South is declarer in 4 S. South informs wrongly to East that it's his = >> turn to lead. East sais that it is not his turn. South, not waiting for = >> the lead, spred his hand on the table.=20 >> >> What's your rule? > >I don't think there's anything to rule, since nobody committed any >infraction. Since nobody has yet led, we're still in the auction >period. There are some circumstances in which a player may yet change >his call; if that happens, the auction continues, and Law 24 applies, >so that North will be required to pass at his next turn. > >Assuming this doesn't happen, though, South picks up his hand, and >West leads. There's no penalty exposing all his cards, except for the >obvious "penalty" that East and West now get to defend double-dummy. >Law 54A obviously doesn't apply since nobody led. That's not fair! I have enough trouble defending when I can see 26 cards: there should be a penalty for making me see 39 and totally confusing me!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just to show you how bad my defense is, and totally off-topic for BLML [so shoot me!] this is what I did this evening: Qxx Dummy T9x T9x Txxx ATx K8 Me J87x QJ8x LHO opens 1NT [12-14], partner whacks it and leads H2, fourth highest. T, K, A, declarer returns a small one. Partner wins his J and plays another. You discard a diamond asking for a club. Declarer plays a spade to the nine and king. Partner cashes the DA, then plays CA, C9, which goes to declarer's king. Declarer cashes the HQ, partner follows, dummy discards a spade. And I should discard? Q Dummy -- T9 Tx AT -- Me J8 QJ -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 10:13:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H0CJd19942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:12:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H0C6H19934 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:12:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15teEI-00047r-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:06:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:04:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse References: <001301c1563e$196a9120$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> In-Reply-To: <001301c1563e$196a9120$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >> >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have >> won medals in European championships and stronger events. >> >> >> K Q x J x x >> A Q x >> K Q x x x x J x x x x >> A x x K J 9 >> >> >> West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer >> now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about >> his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get >> the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll >> obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. >> >> Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? >> >> Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs >> (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way >> back). > > >Same thing again: L70E. We don't allow declarer to finesse >unless playing clubs playing clubs from the top is irrational. >So is it? I don't think it is for the man who failed to see that he might >lose >a trick in clubs at all. Let me emphasize that the definition of >"irrational" >in TFLB *doesn't depend* on "the class of player involved". It does now. Minutes of the WBFLC in Maastricht, August 30th 2000. 5. The Committee considered the possible interpretations of the footnote to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that the footnote has not been worded clearly. The Committee invites the copyright holders to change this footnote when next printing the laws, so that it will read: "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." In the meantime the correct interpretation of the current footnote is in accordance with the revision of the wording to be made. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 10:22:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H0Kg319969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:20:42 +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 f9H0KZH19965 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:20:36 +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 AAA19483 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:15:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:10:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse 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 , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have >won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > K Q x J x x > A Q x > K Q x x x x J x x x x > A x x K J 9 > > >West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer >now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about >his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get >the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll >obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > >Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > Nope, stupid claim, stupid result. cheers John >Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs >(cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way >back). > >Henk > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk >Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, >then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 11:09:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H19Nx20025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:09:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H19HH20021 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:09:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.18.62] (helo=[217.35.18.62]) by carbon.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15tf7f-00039d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:03:52 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001001c1565c$1cf0af00$02001aac@jazztel.es> <200110161713.KAA20039@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 02:03:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:02 am +0100 17/10/01, David Stevenson wrote: > > Just to show you how bad my defense is, ...but your American is coming along very well :) -- Gordon Rainsford London 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 Oct 17 13:05:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H33El20083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:03:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.de (mailout06.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H338H20079 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout06.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15tgtO-0000kJ-00; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:57:14 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.226.223.150]) by fmrl05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15tgtO-1AE5SKC; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:57:14 +0200 Message-ID: <3BCCF268.1811F465@vwalther.de> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:52:24 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Sterling , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > [snips] > Why on earth does anyone _want_ > to force declarer to play a card he had no intention of > playing, just because he carelessly said only "Ace" while > pointing at the card he wanted to play? That isn't what > I call bridge. I do not want to force him to play the wrong Ace. His intention to play the Ace of spades is clear. But I think we should not give any penalty to the RHO just because he didn't recognize declarers gesture. Suppose you are guest at the telegraphers club. Declarer calls 'Ace' and transmits the information 'Spades' in the morse code, tapping against his glas of wine. You do not recognize that, but all the people at the table including the TD tell you that you revoked by playing a club since the Ace of Spades was clearly designated. The main point in this discussion is (IMHO): Is it allowed that RHO does not recognize (respectively:pay attention to) declarers gestures? Is there a different decision if RHO is blind or short-sighted? Minor questions: If declarer calls the 'Ace' and dummy plays the Ace of Spades > [snips] > > Suppose declarer had said nothing at all, but had > unmistakeably pointed to the Ace of trump. Would you say that > no card has been designated at all? I would say that he has > designated the Ace of trump. > Complete agreement. Now there is no doubt at all because he said nothing. And so there is no problem at all: If I miss his gesture I will play no card unless I recognize that dummy is playing a card. If i recognize that, I will follow suit or ask wether declarer told dummy to play the card. By the way: We had more then hundred mails about this topic. Do you still think that naming a rank and pointing to a colour "incontrovertible" designates a card? Greetings, Volker -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 17:37:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H7aXB23986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:36:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H7aRH23982 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:36:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h181.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.181]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9H7UwZ18609 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:30:58 +0400 Message-ID: <3BCD26CF.3FAAB02B@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:35:59 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Open Letter References: <3f.3284a8.28fd75ca@aol.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------DA79B2E93912DF750AC5E042" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --------------DA79B2E93912DF750AC5E042 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:) Schoderb@aol.com wrote: "If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry... ...Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted." When I wrote my post - I did not plan to have a discussion. The only my aim was to read something like it was quoted above and writen by Kojak. Just now I am satisfied and apologizing for my rather harsh wording. More over, as I thought that this very sharpeness of my post would serve for attracting attention, so, for any case, I am apologizing for it too. I am going to open completely another theme: "TD's responsibility, L74, ignorance etc." And I'll start it after some time passes and temperature of discussion becomes not so high. But if (and only if) Ton and/or Kojak insist - I am ready to put my arguments just now:) Best wishes Vitold --------------DA79B2E93912DF750AC5E042 Content-Type: text/html; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all:)

Schoderb@aol.com wrote:

"If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry...
...Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted."

When I wrote my post - I did not plan to have a discussion. The only my aim was to read something like it was quoted above and writen by Kojak.  Just now I am satisfied and apologizing for my rather harsh wording. More over, as I thought that this very sharpeness of my post would serve for attracting attention, so, for any case, I am apologizing for it too.
I am going to open completely another theme: "TD's responsibility, L74, ignorance etc."  And I'll start it after some time passes and temperature of discussion becomes not so high. But if (and only if) Ton and/or Kojak insist - I am ready to put my arguments just now:)
Best wishes
Vitold
  --------------DA79B2E93912DF750AC5E042-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 17:56:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H7u7124003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:56:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f14.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H7u1H23999 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:56:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:50:31 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.187 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:50:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.187] From: "Alan Hill" To: cfgcs@eiu.edu Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:50:31 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2001 07:50:31.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[656F71B0:01C156E0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think this covers the situation well. Much of the difference in opinion seems to be based on what the facts are rather than differences in how the situation should be handled. >From: Grant Sterling >To: "David Burn" >CC: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card >Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:36:16 -0500 > >At 02:28 AM 10/16/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: > [snipping the part with which I agree, namely that >a card once named _or otherwise designated_ by declarer >is deemed played regardless of what dummy does.] > >> >From what I can gather at the moment, though, the declarer asked for an >>ace, without specifying which ace; an opponent, thinking that the > > Without _verbally_ specifying which ace. :) > >>ace of >>clubs was "played", followed suit; it then transpired that the ace >>declarer had in mind was the ace of spades. All I would say about that >>is this: there is no excuse whatever for a declarer who leaves doubt in >>anyone's mind about the card he has requested from dummy. As usual, > > Well, he _pointed at the card_. What baffles me, and >DWS, is how anyone could have any doubts in his mind about >which card declarer was requesting when he pointed at the card. >Now I agree that if the original case was poorly stated, and >what in fact happened was that declarer just said "Ace", RHO >played a club, and declarer _then_ pointed at the ace of spades, >then we have a very different case. But in the case as described >declarer _pointed at the card_. > In any case... > >>the >>relevant Laws would cause no problem if they read as follows: >> >>"Declarer specifies a card to be played from dummy by naming both the >>suit and the rank of the card, or by physically detaching the card from >>dummy. If he fails in this respect, either defender may require the play >>of any card from dummy that may legally be played to the current trick." > > This would, indeed, solve this problem. As would >hanging declarer by the neck until dead. > >>Of course, they wouldn't like this at Eric Landau's club. I can't > > Nor mine. > >>help >>that - I would ask only: is anyone happy with the current situation >>where a man asks this way, points that way, and then summons some >>hapless individual to sort out the resulting mess to the disgruntlement >>of all concerned? > > I myself am happy with the current situation. The >number of cases where this causes any real problems _that >would have been solved by a harsher law_ is so tiny >compared to the naumber of cases where problems would be >caused by a harsher law, that frankly this doesn't bother me >in the slightest. > >>David Burn >>London, England > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 18:08:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H88DL24022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:08:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost1.onet.pl ([213.180.128.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H887H24017 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:08:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:8964 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost1.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:02:27 +0200 Message-ID: <005d01c156e1$3ad3e480$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: References: <001301c1563e$196a9120$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:22:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 2:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse > Konrad Ciborowski writes > >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > >> >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > >> won medals in European championships and stronger events. > >> > >> > >> K Q x J x x > >> A Q x > >> K Q x x x x J x x x x > >> A x x K J 9 > >> > >> > >> West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer > >> now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about > >> his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get > >> the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > >> obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > >> > >> Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > >> > >> Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs > >> (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way > >> back). > > > > > >Same thing again: L70E. We don't allow declarer to finesse > >unless playing clubs playing clubs from the top is irrational. > >So is it? I don't think it is for the man who failed to see that he might > >lose > >a trick in clubs at all. Let me emphasize that the definition of > >"irrational" > >in TFLB *doesn't depend* on "the class of player involved". > > It does now. > > > Minutes of the WBFLC in Maastricht, August 30th 2000. > > 5. The Committee considered the possible interpretations of the footnote > to Laws 69,70 and 71. It was agreed that the footnote has not been > worded clearly. The Committee invites the copyright holders to change > this footnote when next printing the laws, so that it will read: "For > the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be > careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player > involved." I do have this footnote in my FLB. But the point is that we don't have to look at the footnote at all. Look: E. Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop) The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal [*)] line of play; or unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational. It says that the TD will allow the claimer to find a particular card in two cases: - an opponent showed out before the claim was made (A) - he will show out later on on any normal line of play (B) - failing to find that particular card would be irrational (C) The footnote defines the word "normal" that is used in the second case. However this is the third case we are considering; the L70E says that "Director shall not accept (...) unless (A) or (B) or (C). (C) doesn't contain the word "normal" so we shlouldn't look for the footnote at all this time. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.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 Oct 17 18:08:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H88Jt24026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:08:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost1.onet.pl ([213.180.128.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H88AH24021 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:08:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:8964 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost1.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:02:27 +0200 Message-ID: <005e01c156e1$3aeac7e0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016120347.00a14c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:56:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > At 06:13 PM 10/16/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >Pièce touchée, pièce jouée - this is what they do in chess and this > >is what we should do in bridge: get rid of the mind-reading nonsense. > > Mind-reading? When declarer points to the card he wants > to play you call it 'mind-reading' to think that he is trying > to play that card? > > > Respectfully, > Grant > I have discovered on numerous occasions that we have very different philosophies of the game; I guess we shall never come to an agreement but anyway it is a pleasure to discuss. The problem is that in bridge the TD isn't present at the table and doesn't watch constantly what is going on. He rules post factum on the basis of what he is told by the players involved. The Laws should be so written that, whenever possible, he shouldn't be forced to judge post factum whether, for instance, the declarer's intention was incontrovertible or not. "How exactly did you point to the AS? Could you demonstrate it?" "No, I didn't see him point to anything at all but I heard him say <>" "Come on, man, you couldn't fail to see that I meant the spade ace, not the club ace" etc. And even if the TD were present at the table all the time he would have the same problem. Several years ago an opponent changed his call at my table. As it was a small friendly student tournament the TD asked me whether in my opinion the change was made "with pause for thought" or not. My reply was "How the hell should I know?" Yes I was sitting half a meter away from my opponent and I heard what he said but I still was unable to say whether the change was "after a pause for thought" or not. It is far easier to determine whether a player said "ace" or "two clubs" at all; hardly anyone has doubts about this but it is much harder to tell how fast did the player change his call or whether the move of his hand was "pointing" to a particular card or not. I wonder, Grant, why are you so afraid of the "Pièce touchée, pièce jouée" rule in bridge. I have never heard any chess player complaining about "merciless" rules because of which he lost a game already won. And this rule doesn't make people quit playing chess; they accept it as a natural part of the game. I cannot remember anyone advocating for a change in the chess magazines. (I read them fairly regularly although I play chess at the zero level; well my bridge partners claim that I... never mind :-)) My impression is that the newcomers in bridge think that this is a natural state of affairs and they are surprised that people can take back the plays and calls they already made. And this "piece touched, piece played" rule, while not driving anyone from the game, simplifies a great deal of things in chess. I don't remember any ruling of this kind being debated in chess magazines or mailing lists. So why wouldn't it be a good idea? Yes, Grant, I know that you wouldn't want, as you once wrote, to lose a match because you accidentally pulled out the "2NT" card instead of the "2S" card. I wouldn't want that either; yes, it hurts. But I wouldn't to lose a match because I failed to see a 100% line and went down in an iron-clad contract yet this is what happens to me from time to time; and it hurts twice as much. But that doesn't make me think that I should be allowed to replay the board. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.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 Oct 17 18:11:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H8BCe24050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:11:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H8B5H24044 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:11:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.159]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9H85bB05723 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:05:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCC3E7C.3139F5D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:04:44 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > The > > > offending side, however, should be awarded > > > the score that it would have been allotted as > > > the normal consequence of its infraction. > > > > I cannot believe this means NS +100 > > Without the infraction, NS would not have bid 5S, > > so the result stays at -300. (so +300 for them) > > > +=+ Now let me understand this. You are the > Director; you happen to be standing in the vicinity > and as they score the board you hear West say to > East: "I am not really sure whether I was entitled > to bid five after your hesitation." With Law 81C6 > in mind you decide to explore the facts. Indeed > West has used UI to get to 5S and the score he > has entered is NS +100. > Since NS -300 is the "normal consequence > of the infraction" you adjust the EW score from > -100 to +300. Is that so? Or do you notice that > whilst "had the irregularity not occurred" applies > to the "most favourable result that was likely" > awarded to the NOS, the "at all probable" result > awarded to the OS has no restriction to > circumstances where the irregularity has not > occurred? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ IIRC, the WBF defines damage as the difference between the expected result without the infraction, and the actual result at the table. Let's get our facts straight. Without the infraction, the NOs (NS) are in 5Di, scoring -300. With the infraction, they would be defending 5Sp, normally down, +100 The NOs then make an irrational defensive error, scoring -650. The NOs are damaged, because -650 is less than -300. Mind you, this is WBF definition, I personally do not agree with it, but that is not the point here. However, to the NOs this damage is subsequent, not consequent (or however you want to put it). So they go keep their -650. As for the Os, they have received a windfall that they should not have gotten. They must go back to the situation without the infraction, which is -300. Surely you do not suggest giving them +100 ? -- 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 Oct 17 18:11:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H8BGA24054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:11:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9H8BAH24049 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:11:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-156-159.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.156.159]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9H85eB05784 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:05:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCC3FFB.7AB23B8E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:11:07 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse References: <001501c15637$d4a72b80$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mike's analysis seems correct to me. mike amos wrote: > > It seems very likely declarer has miscounted his tricks and thought he had > 11 without recourse to the C finesse (If I ask him, he may indeed honestly > confess this - my experience is that players do tell the truth) - no one > claims like this if they think the C finesse is necessary for 11 tricks > I concur with this part. > Obviously if he plays the hand out, at some stage declarer will realise that > he only has ten tricks - IMHO this is as likely to be after cashing the top > Clubs as before and I have no difficulty in ruling 1 off - "any doubtful > points should be resolved against the claimer" > This is where I part company. This player's mistake is that of a "fast" claim, not a "wrong" one. I believe this player will never play any more tricks without at least some planning, and it is quite clear that he will notice that he still needs an 11th trick. So I allow this player one more chance. I give him one finesse, the most obvious one, the one he himself stated immediately, and in this case that means the contract. It is easy to see that on this layout, claiming will always lead to one down - because there is always a "reasonably sensible line" that will fail. > If the player wants to appeal - I shall be happy to accept his deposit and > confidently expect the appeal commitee to retain it > > (I have been wrong before ) > > Mike > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 9:56 AM > Subject: [BLML] Claim and finesse > > > > > From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > > won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > > > > K Q x J x x > > A Q x > > K Q x x x x J x x x x > > A x x K J 9 > > > > > > West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer > > now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about > > his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get > > the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > > obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > > > > Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > > > > Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs > > (cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way > > back). > > > > Henk > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net > > RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk > > Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > > 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > > The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, > > then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. > (Anonymous) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 18:15:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H8FNv24073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:15:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f181.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H8FIH24069 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:15:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 01:09:48 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.187 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:09:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.187] From: "Alan Hill" To: john@asimere.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:09:48 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2001 08:09:48.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[16E054D0:01C156E3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >Nope, stupid claim, stupid result. cheers John I agree. Declarer can't count. (To which I empathise.) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 18:45:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H8jEt24091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:45:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9H8j9H24087 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:45:09 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <4SJNNNM2>; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:40:29 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E5FB@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [BLML] Opening lead Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:40:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9H8jBH24088 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk José Miguel Martínez wrote: >Hi all, here is a stranger problem: > >South is declarer in 4 S. South informs wrongly to East that it's his turn to lead. >East sais that it is not his turn. South, not waiting for the lead, spred his hand on the table. > >What's your rule? Well, now, that would be a very easy defence for EW, wouldn't it? Declarer neither plays a card, nor claims, hence he picks up all his cards and play commences as usual without penalty (48A). The prematurely exposed cards are AI to EW. Oh, and I recommend ten cups of very strong coffee to South :)) -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 19:23:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9H9MAJ24122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:22:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9H9M5H24118 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA22706; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:16:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Oct 17 11:14:26 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9LTCYQ2JM000LPL@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:15:38 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:15:42 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:46:38 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Open Letter To: "'vitold'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Who am I to insist anything? But I would have liked to insist upon you to come with something like this message. Which appeared not to be necessary. Good for you. ton Schoderb@aol.com wrote: "If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry... ...Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted." When I wrote my post - I did not plan to have a discussion. The only my aim was to read something like it was quoted above and writen by Kojak. Just now I am satisfied and apologizing for my rather harsh wording. More over, as I thought that this very sharpeness of my post would serve for attracting attention, so, for any case, I am apologizing for it too. I am going to open completely another theme: "TD's responsibility, L74, ignorance etc." And I'll start it after some time passes and temperature of discussion becomes not so high. But if (and only if) Ton and/or Kojak insist - I am ready to put my arguments just now:) Best wishes Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 17 20:55:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HAscw24184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:54:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost4.onet.pl (ghost4.onet.pl [213.180.128.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HAsSH24180 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:2564 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost4.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:48:55 +0200 Message-ID: <00b301c156f8$7c8147d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001501c15637$d4a72b80$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <3BCC3FFB.7AB23B8E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:42:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk HdW wrote: > This is where I part company. This player's mistake is that > of a "fast" claim, not a "wrong" one. I believe this player > will never play any more tricks without at least some > planning, Why? I have seen world champs going one down in contracts like this due to miscounting tricks and the lack of "some planning". Doesn't the mere fact that the guy claimed 11 tricks indicate that he was living in a dreamland during this deal? >and it is quite clear that he will notice that he > still needs an 11th trick. It is quite clear to me that he won't. He will cash his 10 tricks and say "oh, s..t, what the hell I have done?" at the end of the play. > > So I allow this player one more chance. I give him one > finesse, the most obvious one, the one he himself stated > immediately, Not immediately, Herman, only after his claim was contested. >and in this case that means the contract. > > It is easy to see that on this layout, claiming will always > lead to one down - because there is always a "reasonably > sensible line" that will fail. > Quite right, too. It is very silly to *claim* 11 tricks on this layout. Only a man who cannot see the need to take a club finesse can do it. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.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 Oct 17 21:06:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HB6bX24201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:06:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HB6WH24197 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:06:32 +1000 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA31255; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:01:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Oct 17 12:58:55 2001 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl (agro500s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01K9LVXS0YFU000KNG@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:32:05 +0200 Received: by agro500s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:00:29 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:46:38 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Open Letter To: "'vitold'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Who am I to insist anything? But I would have liked to insist upon you to come with something like this message. Which appeared not to be necessary. Good for you. ton Schoderb@aol.com wrote: "If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry... ...Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted." When I wrote my post - I did not plan to have a discussion. The only my aim was to read something like it was quoted above and writen by Kojak. Just now I am satisfied and apologizing for my rather harsh wording. More over, as I thought that this very sharpeness of my post would serve for attracting attention, so, for any case, I am apologizing for it too. I am going to open completely another theme: "TD's responsibility, L74, ignorance etc." And I'll start it after some time passes and temperature of discussion becomes not so high. But if (and only if) Ton and/or Kojak insist - I am ready to put my arguments just now:) Best wishes Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 00:16:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HEF4313198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HEErH13173 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-95-37.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.95.37] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15trNu-000IB5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:09:27 +0100 Message-ID: <004401c15715$221c6320$255f063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Open Letter Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:05:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: 'vitold' ; Sent: 17 October 2001 08:46 Subject: RE: [BLML] Open Letter > Who am I to insist anything? But I would have liked > to insist upon you to come with something like this > message. Which appeared not to be necessary. > Good for you. > > ton > > Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > > "If You, Ed, feel insulted, I'm sorry... > Again, to all, sorry for anyone being insulted." > > Vitold wrote: > > Just now I am satisfied and apologizing for my > rather harsh wording. +=+ The fact is that nearly all of us have been known to explode with frustration at one time or another. At other times we have put our explosion in words and, feeling better, erased what we have written without pressing the 'send' button. As Horace says: "anger is a brief madness" and we should have sympathy for the mad, not rail at them nor ascribe to them motives that are not in their hearts. ~ G ~ +=+ ".. grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand...." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 00:16:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HEF4N13200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:15:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HEEqH13172 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-95-37.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.95.37] helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15trNq-000IB5-00; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:09:23 +0100 Message-ID: <004201c15715$1fc1aa40$255f063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> <3BCC3E7C.3139F5D1@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:59:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 16 October 2001 15:04 Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action > > Let's get our facts straight. > +=+ Indeed +=+ > -------------- \x/ ------------ > However, to the NOs this damage is subsequent, not > consequent (or however you want to put it). > So they go keep their -650. > +=+ Yes +=+ > > As for the Os, they have received a windfall that they > should not have gotten. They must go back to the > situation without the infraction, which is -300. > +=+ No. See below. +=+ > > Surely you do not suggest giving them +100 ? > +=+ We are applying the Code of Practice. This instructs that "the offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction". The normal consequence here is NS+100; since NS are not damaged in consequence of the infraction, as is acknowledged in the award to them of NS-650, and +100 is a no damage situation. The CoP goes on to say the infractor's score is to be adjusted without regard to the revoke if the NOS revokes. The Law says that the NOS gets the least favourable result that is at all probable, and the results to be considered for their qualification include any that may be obtained via the infraction as well as those that may be reached with no infraction. This EW pair would have a hard time arguing that 5S could not be reached via the infraction, and this being so it is the belief of some that NS+100 would then be a result that has a sufficient level of probability to qualify. The number of tricks actually made at the table through IWoG defence is not relevant to the assessment of the probability of making a different number. ~ 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 Oct 18 00:35:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HEYxk16413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:34:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HEYpH16393 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:34:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-209.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.209]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9HETOT11960 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:29:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCD481C.E29A90BF@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:58:04 +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] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016120347.00a14c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 06:13 PM 10/16/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >Pièce touchée, pièce jouée - this is what they do in chess and this > >is what we should do in bridge: get rid of the mind-reading nonsense. > > Mind-reading? When declarer points to the card he wants > to play you call it 'mind-reading' to think that he is trying > to play that card? > And besides, Konrad. The laws are what the laws are. L46B exists. If you believe that there is doubt that it applies in this case, then imagine for yourself a case wher you agree that it does, and then follow us through. It could be a common occurence. Declarer gives an incomplete designation, which by L46B1-6 can be dealt with, but for which there is an incontrovertible intention. Defender plays on the first card, not the second. What do we do ? > > Konrad Ciborowski > > Krakow, Poland > > 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/ -- 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 Oct 18 00:35:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HEYnd16387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:34:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HEYgH16376 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:34:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-209.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.209]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9HETDT11852 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:29:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCD4709.2558E667@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:53:29 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant touches on a difficult subject. We agree that declarer intended to play the ace of spades. We also agree that he played this card, but in a manner which led defender to believe he played clubs. Defender now has "revoked" and I do believe the majority on this list will allow that revoke to be corrected without penalty. Grant asks the (correct) question if this is not giving to this defender some advantage that a more careful defender would not have. Yes it is, Grant, and so what ? After all, it is declarer who perpetrated the first infraction, and so we should allow defender some advantage. Does this mean that some sly defender can do this on purpose ? Well, I don't see why not. After all, it is an uncommon occurence, and a dangerous action nevertheless. Can you be certain of declarer's intention ? Grant Sterling wrote: > [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/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 01:15:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HFFKL24324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:15:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HFFEH24310 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:15:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h137.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.137]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9HF9kc29981 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:09:46 +0400 Message-ID: <3BCD9257.C7ADC11E@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:14:47 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Open Letter References: <004401c15715$221c6320$255f063e@pacific> <3BCD8A7A.7D1A73A0@elnet.msk.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Grattan:) Does it mean that in cush cases you vote for "mind-reading" - contrary to what you defend in rulings?:)))) > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ > > The fact is that nearly all of us have been > > known to explode with frustration at one time > > or another. At other times we have put our > > explosion in words and, feeling better, erased > > what we have written without pressing the 'send' > > button. > > As Horace says: "anger is a brief madness" > > and we should have sympathy for the mad, not > > rail at them nor ascribe to them motives that > > are not in their hearts. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > ".. grant that I may not so much seek to be > > consoled as to console; to be understood > > as to understand...." > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 01:47:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HFktg29700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:46:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HFknH29674 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:46:50 +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 f9HFecL06746; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:40:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017102637.00a08120@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:34:08 -0500 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <20011017000522.LGAB17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.1 32]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:05 PM 10/17/01 +1200, Wayne wrote: >It was agreed at the table that declarer named ace and pointed at trumps >but the defender did not see this action. Did he also fail to see that the Ace of trumps had been played from dummy, or did he play a club despite seeing the trump in the played position? While I agree that a declarer plays the cards and not dummy, I would be worried if I knew I was not looking at declarer, heard only 'Ace', but saw the Ace of trumps had been played from dummy. I wouldn't play a club on the basis of L46 until I figured out why dummy had played a trump instead. If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy for him, although I would probably _at the very least_ ask declarer if he wishes me to waive the penalty for the revoke under L81c8. If dummy played the trump ace after defender had already contributed a club, then I have much more sympathy for him. >Wayne Burrows 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 Oct 18 01:50:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HFoGG00342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:50:16 +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 f9HFoAH00325 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:50:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA16144 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA18339 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:44:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played > before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy > for him, Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card dummy places in the played position? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 01:58:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HFwD102027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:58:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HFw7H02002 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:58:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-65.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.65]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9HFqdB22738 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:52:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCD9A0D.96C851B7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:47:41 +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] Claim and finesse References: <001501c15637$d4a72b80$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <3BCC3FFB.7AB23B8E@village.uunet.be> <00b301c156f8$7c8147d0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > HdW wrote: > > > This is where I part company. This player's mistake is that > > of a "fast" claim, not a "wrong" one. I believe this player > > will never play any more tricks without at least some > > planning, > > Why? I have seen world champs going one down in > contracts like this due to miscounting tricks > and the lack of "some planning". > Doesn't the mere fact that the guy claimed 11 tricks > indicate that he was living in a dreamland during this > deal? > No it isn't. There can be two reasons why he claimed at this moment. 1) He's in dreamland, having worked it out and genuinely believing he has 11 tricks, or 2) He has acted too fast and has not worked anything out. I believe it is up to the TD to determine which of the two it is. >From the facts presented, I choose to believe it is the second; if you believe, from the facts that it is the first, then of course he should get only 10 tricks. But your saying that it is clear that he is in dreamland is not true. Now I am not saying that a player who has not worked it out should get away with it shot free. But neither am I saying that he needs to get shot. We should judge, in all fairness. And that includes allowing him to work it out and make simple deductions, if we find that he has not yet done so before claiming. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 02:23:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HGMYf06270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:22:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HGMNH06234 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:22:23 +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 f9HGGNL27792; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:16:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017103422.00a1dd40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:09:50 -0500 To: "Volker R. Walther" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: BLML In-Reply-To: <3BCCF268.1811F465@vwalther.de> References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:52 AM 10/17/01 +0200, Volker R. Walther wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > > [snips] > > Why on earth does anyone _want_ > > to force declarer to play a card he had no intention of > > playing, just because he carelessly said only "Ace" while > > pointing at the card he wanted to play? That isn't what > > I call bridge. > > >I do not want to force him to play the wrong Ace. His intention to >play the Ace of spades is clear. But according to your reading of the laws, declarer has specified the Ace of clubs, per L46, regardless of any pointing or gesturing he may have made. This produces a difficult situation: According to Grattan, in response to my specific question in this regard, an 'incontrovertibility' ruling under L46b _does not_ reflect back to L45c4b. In other words, if I make an incomplete designation of a card that would _ordinarily_ be resolved by the play of the Club A, but it is incontrovertible that I intended the trump A, this is not regarded as a _change of designation_ under L45, but rather the trump A is regarded as having been the designated card all along. OTOH, if we regard the gesture as having been itself a designation under L45c4a, then there has been no change of designation at all. So I see these possibilities: a) You rule that the designation was incomplete but declarer's intention was incontrovertible. In this case, the trump A is deemed to have been the played card from the beginning, and the club is a revoke. I would like to see a law allowing its retraction without penalty, but I don't yet see one [unless I can convince declarer to ask me to waive the penalty under L81.] b) You rule that the designation was incomplete, and declarer's intention was not incontrovertible. In that case declarer must play the A of clubs. c) You rule that pointing at a card is a complete designation, in which case there has been no change of designation and the club is a revoke. All of these either make the club a revoke or force declarer to play the ace of clubs. What most people seem to want is to say that declarer has changed his designation, allowing defender to take back his card. But I see no coherent way to make this ruling. The only way to rule this way would be to say the following: 1) Declarer's designation was incomplete, despite his having pointed at the card he wanted to play, and 2) His intention to play the A of trumps was not incontrovertible, and 3) His pointing at the card to play constituted a _change of designation_ that was made _without pause for thought_. I think 1,2, and 3 are all false, but ruling this way requires us to say all three of these things. I can't stomach that. I would always take pointing at a card as complete designation, I would certainly take it to be incontrovertible proof of intention if I didn't accept it as complete, and I cannot rule that declarer _changed_ his designation when the pointing occurred at the same time as the saying of 'Ace'. If you rule that pointing doesn't consitute a designation, then you cannot rule that it constituted a _change_ of designation. >But I think we should not give any penalty to the RHO just because he >didn't recognize declarers gesture. I don't, either. I just don't see any law we can use to allow us to rule this way without twisting the lawbook so hard that we might as well throw it out. >Suppose you are guest at the telegraphers club. Declarer calls 'Ace' >and transmits the information 'Spades' in the morse code, tapping >against his glas of wine. You do not recognize that, but all the >people at the table including the TD tell you that you revoked by >playing a club since the Ace of Spades was clearly designated. Imagine that I hear declarer say "Ace", I see him tapping something on his wine glass, I know I am a guest at the telegraphers club, and I see dummy play the Ace of Spades. I would hardly regard myself as an innocent victim if despite all this I play a club. It isn't that defender couldn't understand declarer's gesture. It's that he wasn't looking, and in the case as originally described he apparently wasn't looking at the card dummy played, either. >The main point in this discussion is (IMHO): >Is it allowed that RHO does not recognize (respectively:pay attention >to) declarers gestures? Is there a different decision if RHO is blind >or short-sighted? I don't think so, though I wish there were, and I certainly hope declarer would agree to ask me to waive the penalty if this were true. But, unfortunately, I know cases where a short-sighted LOL at my club saw her partner lead a diamond, saw dummy revoke with a heart, played a diamond herself, and discovered later that her partner had in fact led a heart after all. I felt sorry for her, but can't rule in her favor if she asks not to have a revoke penalty. > > Suppose declarer had said nothing at all, but had > > unmistakeably pointed to the Ace of trump. Would you say that > > no card has been designated at all? I would say that he has > > designated the Ace of trump. > > > >Complete agreement. Now there is no doubt at all because he said >nothing. Do you mean that if he points to the Ace of trumps, there is no doubt that he wants to play the ace of trumps, but if he points at the ace of trumps and says 'Ace' [or, for that matter, says 'trumps'] there is now doubt about what he means to play? Perhaps if everyone in the world had memorized L46 by heart there might be, but in the real world I'd say there's _less_ doubt about what he's trying to play. [Obviously if he had said "play the Ace of Clubs" or "play a low trump" while pointing at the trump A there'd be doubt. Even here, I'm not sure we can rule that he has unmistakeably designated the A of clubs or a low trump, and I definately can't agree that he has _changed_ his designation.] >And so there is no problem at all: If I miss his gesture I will play >no card unless I recognize that dummy is playing a card. If i >recognize that, I will follow suit or ask wether declarer told dummy >to play the card. Exactly. And when dummy plays the Ace of trumps and you know you weren't paying attention to what declarer was doing, you ought to ask this before you assume declarer has called for a club. _Even if_ declarer's designation was incomplete he still hasn't called for a club unless his intention was controvertible. >By the way: >We had more then hundred mails about this topic. >Do you still think that naming a rank and pointing to a colour >"incontrovertible" designates a card? No, even stronger--I think it designates a card per L45c4a! We had a hundred mails on this topic because people have sympathy for a defender _who didn't see the pointing_. I do, too. But that doesn't mean that the card wasn't designated. If I were forced at gunpoint to rule that the designation was incomplete, then I would rule that his intention was incontrovertible, yes. If it isn't, then I have never seen an incontrovertible intention in my life and never will. Imagine that declarer says "Spade Ace", but all I hear is "Ace". I follow with a club. Are you saying that declarer did not designate a card, because I didn't hear the word 'Spade'? What declarer happens to see or hear doesn't change what card has been designated, unless declarer's gesture was furtive or his statement was inaudible. The card has been designated, defender didn't see the designation, and the only question is if there's a legal way to let defender off the hook for revoking. I hope there is. >Greetings, Volker 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 Oct 18 02:40:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HGdgB09850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:39:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu (ux1.cts.eiu.edu [139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HGdZH09828 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:39:36 +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 f9HGXeL06367; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:33:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017111342.00a21730@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:27:05 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 AM 10/17/01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Grant Sterling > > If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played > > before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy > > for him, > >Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card >dummy places in the played position? None--I didn't say it made any legal difference, I said I'd have little sympathy for him. _Legally_ I think defender has revoked, regardless. [If you like, you can say that defender is so obligated by L45f, or L62. :)] Suppose you cough just as declarer says "Spade Ace", and so all you hear is "Ace". Suppose dummy's watching Wendy, and so he doesn't play a card, and, thinking declarer has just called for the Club Ace, you contribute a club. I would have some sympathy for you--you probably should have checked to see if declarer had said anything else while you were coughing, since there are two aces in dummy and you might wonder about his "incomplete" designation made at a time that you knew you weren't able to hear him, but I would have some sympathy for you. If, OTOH, the same thing happens, you see dummy pull the Ace of Spades, and you follow with a club anyway, I would have very little sympathy for you. Either way, you've revoked. _If_ this defender knew he wasn't looking at declarer, heard an incomplete designation, knew there were two aces in dummy, saw that dummy had played the Ace of trumps, heard no comment from declarer indicating that this was the wrong ace...and played a club, anyway, then I have little sympathy for him. 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 Oct 18 02:50:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HGoXb12016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:50:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HGoRH11990 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:50:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id k.15f.274212b (2168); Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:44:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <15f.274212b.28ff0f69@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:44:25 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, vwalther@vwalther.de CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_15f.274212b.28ff0f69_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_15f.274212b.28ff0f69_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PLease help this GOS (Gentle Old Soldier). In reading 45C4(b) is it far fetched for me to understand that he has made TWO designations at the same time, each complete according to 4(a), and in so doing one of them must be an "inadvertent designation" since they are in conflict with each other. None of this has to do with a change of play. If you like that what's the problem? Apply 45C4(b) and 47E2(a). Kojak -- the newly minted GOS. --part1_15f.274212b.28ff0f69_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PLease help this GOS (Gentle Old Soldier).

In reading 45C4(b) is it far fetched for me to understand that he has made TWO designations at the same time, each complete according to 4(a), and in so doing one of them must be an "inadvertent designation" since they are in conflict with each other. None of this has to do with a change of play.

If you like that what's the problem? Apply 45C4(b) and 47E2(a).

Kojak -- the newly minted GOS. --part1_15f.274212b.28ff0f69_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 02:58:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HGwSE13711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:58:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HGwIH13691 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 02:58:18 +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 f9HGqIL14280; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:52:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017114324.00a32a30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:45:38 -0500 To: Grant Sterling From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "Volker R. Walther" , BLML In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017103422.00a1dd40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <3BCCF268.1811F465@vwalther.de> <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Minor correction: I said: > Imagine that declarer says "Spade Ace", but all I >hear is "Ace". I follow with a club. Are you saying that >declarer did not designate a card, because I didn't hear >the word 'Spade'? What declarer happens to see or hear This should read 'defender', not 'declarer'. I assure you there was no pause for thought on my part from the moment I recognized my inadvertent designation, but any replies based on this mistake may be retracted without penalty. [It nice to see that we are now using the lawbook to govern the way we post on this list. :)] >doesn't change what card has been designated, unless >declarer's gesture was furtive or his statement was >inaudible. The card has been designated, defender didn't >see the designation, and the only question is if there's >a legal way to let defender off the hook for revoking. I >hope there is. 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 Oct 18 03:53:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HHqUn25907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:52:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HHqOH25894 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:52:24 +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 NAA28938 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA18469 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:46:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:46:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110171746.NAA18469@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > ... In this > case, the trump A is deemed to have been the played > card from the beginning, and the club is a revoke. I > would like to see a law allowing its retraction without > penalty, but I don't yet see one Let's try a different but analogous case. North is dealer and puts the 1C bidding card on the table. East overcalls 1D. North looks startled, says the magic words "Oh s---!" and calls the TD. It develops he meant to bid 1S, and the TD rules that a change is allowed under L25A. Do you now penalize East for an insufficient bid? If not, what law do you use to allow East to change his call? Kojak has answered for the original spades/clubs case. (It happens to match the answer I gave a few days ago.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 03:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HHvci26781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:57:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HHvWH26768 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 03:57:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (vp182-230.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.230]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F917377CE; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:50:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d301c15734$83490080$4fb6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: , , Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:52:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C15745.3D330BC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C15745.3D330BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 'Gentle' you have to earn again. 'Old Soldier', who would dare to doubt = it. Go on like this and the ' GOS' level will be reached soon. Was it = difficult to write such a message? Tell me how to do it.=20 ton -----Original Message----- From: Schoderb@aol.com To: cfgcs@eiu.edu ; vwalther@vwalther.de = Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card =20 =20 PLease help this GOS (Gentle Old Soldier).=20 =20 In reading 45C4(b) is it far fetched for me to understand that he = has made TWO designations at the same time, each complete according to = 4(a), and in so doing one of them must be an "inadvertent designation" = since they are in conflict with each other. None of this has to do with = a change of play.=20 =20 If you like that what's the problem? Apply 45C4(b) and 47E2(a).=20 =20 Kojak -- the newly minted GOS.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C15745.3D330BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

'Gentle' you have to earn again. = 'Old Soldier',=20 who would dare to doubt it.  Go on like this and the ' GOS'  = level=20 will be reached soon. Was it difficult to write such a message? Tell me = how to=20 do it.
 
ton
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Schoderb@aol.com <Schoderb@aol.com>
To: = cfgcs@eiu.edu <cfgcs@eiu.edu>; vwalther@vwalther.de <vwalther@vwalther.de>
C= c:=20 bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au= =20 <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au= >
Date:=20 Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: = [BLML] Played=20 Card

PLease=20 help this GOS (Gentle Old Soldier).

In reading 45C4(b) is it = far=20 fetched for me to understand that he has made TWO designations at = the same=20 time, each complete according to 4(a), and in so doing one of them = must be=20 an "inadvertent designation" since they are in conflict = with each=20 other. None of this has to do with a change of play.

If you = like=20 that what's the problem? Apply 45C4(b) and 47E2(a).

Kojak -- = the=20 newly minted GOS. ------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C15745.3D330BC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 04:36:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HIZf802123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 04:35:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HIZZH02112 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 04:35:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f9HIU9w22899 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004901c15739$a7a75bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:19:59 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Henk > Uijterwaal writes > > > >From last weekend's Dutch national team championships. All players have > >won medals in European championships and stronger events. > > > > > > K Q x J x x > > A Q x > > K Q x x x x J x x x x > > A x x K J 9 > > > > > >West is in 5D. The opening lead is a heart, small, jack, ace. Declarer > >now plays a trump won by north, south following. While north thinks about > >his next move, declarer shows his hand and says "I have 11 tricks, you get > >the SA". NS object and call the TD. In the meantime, declarer says "I'll > >obviously take a club finesse". North holds CQxx. > > > >Do we allow declarer to take a club finesse? > > > Nope, stupid claim, stupid result. No winning finesse allowed with this holding, which allows for other plays that might be "careless or inferior," but not irrational. And no winning cash either (doubleton queen offside). Most TDs in ACBL-land used to say (erroneously) that unstated finesses were not allowed after a claim, so if an offside honor dropped that was just bad luck for the claimer's opponents. Of course the rule is you can't take a winning finesse and must take a losing one. Declarer, having "successfully" finessed with 10x opposite AQJxxxx, claims the rest of the tricks. If Kxx was onside, a second finesse is forbidden. If Kx was offside, a second finesse is mandatory. Since 1997 the TD must determine whether the losing play is "irrational" in such situations. That can often be difficult. > >Or do we force him to take one of the significantly worse lines in clubs > >(cash AK, or lead the jack (queen, ace) and finesse the 10 on the way > >back). Yes, with Qxx North. Danny Kleinman opines that declarer must lose to the queen even if it is singleton! He has seen experts make such supposedly "irrational" plays, and would therefore consider losing to a singleton queen merely "careless or inferior," not irrational. 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 Oct 18 05:16:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HJFdv07636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:15:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HJFSH07595 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:15:29 +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 f9HJ9FL19072; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:09:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:02:22 -0500 To: Schoderb@aol.com From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: vwalther@vwalther.de, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <15f.274212b.28ff0f69@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:44 PM 10/17/01 -0400, Schoderb@aol.com wrote: >PLease help this GOS (Gentle Old Soldier). > >In reading 45C4(b) is it far fetched for me to understand that he has made >TWO designations at the same time, each complete according to 4(a), and in >so doing one of them must be an "inadvertent designation" since they are >in conflict with each other. None of this has to do with a change of play. Sadly, I can't accept this. To make it work we must rule: a) He has 'otherwise designated' the trump A. b) He has made a simultaneous verbal designation of an Ace. So far, so good. The problem is that the verbal designation of the A, if it is a separate designation, must be an incomplete one. L46 tells us how to deal with an incomplete designation. There are two rulings we could give under L46: 1) He has designated the club A, or 2) His intention to play the trump A was incontrovertible. If we rule '2', then he has made two designations, but both times he has designated the trump A, so no retraction is allowed. If we rule '1', then: a) No law that I can see tells us what to do if declarer simultaneously designates two different cards from dummy. [Marv, IIRC, and someone else have suggested that in such a case declarer's verbal statement would take precedence, but I see no legal basis for this, especially when the verbal designation did not fit L46a.] b) L45c4b requires a _change_ in designation, and two simultaneous designations is not the same thing as one inadvertent designation changed to another. c) If you think L47e2a applies to this case, as I once suggested someone could try, then I think it applies without having to go through the process of claiming there are two designations. In any case, I cannot adopt this promising approach because I think declarer's intention was incontrovertible, and so a double designation would just be redundant. >If you like that what's the problem? Apply 45C4(b) and 47E2(a). If you like L47e2a, by all means apply it. >Kojak -- the newly minted GOS. Trying to cooperate, but failing, 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 Oct 18 05:16:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HJGdV07895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:16:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HJGXH07875 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:16:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15tw5l-000LYn-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:11:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:57:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead References: <001001c1565c$1cf0af00$02001aac@jazztel.es> <200110161713.KAA20039@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Rainsford writes >At 12:02 am +0100 17/10/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Just to show you how bad my defense is, > >...but your American is coming along very well :) Practising for Vegas ... -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 05:32:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HJVrM10675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:31:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HJVlH10656 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:31:47 +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 MAA07938; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:26:15 -0700 Message-Id: <200110171926.MAA07938@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:57:04 BST." Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:26:13 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Gordon Rainsford writes > >At 12:02 am +0100 17/10/01, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> Just to show you how bad my defense is, > > > >...but your American is coming along very well :) > > Practising for Vegas ... As long as you're practising, you might start by typing "practicing" (with a C) a hundred times . . . -- 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 Oct 18 07:13:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLCS914811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:12:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HLCMH14807 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:12:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9HL6nh29315 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:06:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:05:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Thanks Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A number of people, including Kojak, have written me, both here and off list, asking me to hang around and continue to shoot off my... er, express my opinions on things. I appreciate the support, everyone, and I so I'll stick around. How does that go? "Be careful what you ask for - you might get it." :-) Anyway, thanks again. And if I missed a personal reply to someone, please forgive me. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 07:37:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLb3614832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:37:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HLauH14826 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:36:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-65-227.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.65.227] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tyHd-000JpT-00; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:31:26 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c15753$19d6e3a0$e3417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Grattan Endicott" , "Volker R. Walther" , "BLML" References: <20011016235125.KYBW17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:11:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Grattan Endicott ; Volker R. Walther ; BLML Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 12:51 AM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > > Pointing is not an official designation but may provide some evidence as to declarer's intention. > +=+ What is the authority for this statement, please? The phrase in the book is "otherwise designates" and since this is not defined in the laws the normal dictionary meaning of the words applies ('point out, indicate, specify'). No doubt a regulating authority can define acceptable methods of designating otherwise than by naming, but I have not seen this done. If not, the Director has to judge whether a card was designated, designated and changed, or whatever. ~ 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 Oct 18 07:37:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLbBE14841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:37:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9HLb1H14831 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:37:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-65-227.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.65.227] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tyHk-000JpT-00; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:31:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c15753$1e4190c0$e3417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Volker R. Walther" , "Grant Sterling" , "BLML" References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BCCF268.1811F465@vwalther.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:31:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > By the way: > We had more then hundred mails about this topic. > Do you still think that naming a rank and pointing > to a colour "incontrovertible" designates a card? > +=+ On each and every occasion the Director when called to the table must ascertain facts (as best he can) and rule whether declarer has designated a specific card. In this 'incontrovertible' is not an issue the word is not present in Law 45. Where it does apply, if 46B comes into it, the answer is again specific to the table and the board, depends on the Director's findings in the particular circumstances, and has nothing to do with the numbers of shots at the moon. That pointing can designate there should be no doubt in anyone's mind: this is simply a matter of the meaning of the word. That cards are designated in this way, and no Director called, may or may not be one's individual experience of the game as it is played. ~ 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 Oct 18 07:37:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLbEg14842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:37:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 f9HLb5H14836 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:37:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from host213-123-65-227.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([213.123.65.227] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15tyHh-000JpT-00; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:31:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c15753$1bee7900$e3417bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , , , References: <20011016234639.KVMK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Open Letter Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:46:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; ; ; Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 12:46 AM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Open Letter > > > > > From: Schoderb@aol.com > > > I strongly recommend David Burn's postings of 15 > > October to anyone who would like to not only > > know what the present Law says, but also > > contains a recommmendation for change in > > future Laws. > > > > Best regards, Kojak > > > But David's post does not contain any information > about what to do under the current laws about the > actual situation of an incomplete designation and > then a defender following to a different suit than > declarer intended. > +=+ Leaving aside the case under discussion and looking at the principle, is not the answer that the Director applies Law 46? The root of the discussion of the 'actual situation' is not that, but the differing views whether the designation is, or is not, complete. There is also the question whether we can or should save an inattentive RHO from the consequences of playing a card. [David Burn, incidentally, has just been re-elected to the chair of the English Laws & Ethics Committee following Steve Barnfield who has stood down because there is a five-year limit on tenure.] ~ 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 Oct 18 07:46:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLk9D14871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:46:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HLk3H14867 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:46:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9HLeZd57483 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:40:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011017171628.00abc220@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:40:33 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017103422.00a1dd40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <3BCCF268.1811F465@vwalther.de> <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:09 PM 10/17/01, Grant wrote: No, even stronger--I think it designates a card per >L45c4a! We had a hundred mails on this topic because >people have sympathy for a defender _who didn't see the >pointing_. I do, too. But that doesn't mean that >the card wasn't designated. > If I were forced at gunpoint to rule that the >designation was incomplete, then I would rule that his >intention was incontrovertible, yes. If it isn't, >then I have never seen an incontrovertible intention >in my life and never will. > Imagine that declarer says "Spade Ace", but all I >hear is "Ace". I follow with a club. Are you saying that >declarer did not designate a card, because I didn't hear >the word 'Spade'? What declarer happens to see or hear >doesn't change what card has been designated, unless >declarer's gesture was furtive or his statement was >inaudible. The card has been designated, defender didn't >see the designation, and the only question is if there's >a legal way to let defender off the hook for revoking. I >hope there is. My original inclination on this problem was to allow the defender to follow suit without penalty (other than his club being UI to his partner), but the arguments to date have convinced me otherwise. A defender who is not familiar with L46B and hears declarer call "ace" when dummy has two aces will not know which ace is played. He cannot follow suit until he finds out which ace was called, either because declarer subsequently specifies (or respecifies verbally) the suit, or because dummy physically plays one of the two aces. A defender who is familiar with the entirety of L46B, OTOH, would know that L46B3a applies only when it is not declarer's incontrovertable intention to play some card other than the one specified by L46B3a, and should therefore know not to follow to the latter unless or until he is satisfied that this is not the case. Our defender, who would like to retract his club and play a spade without penalty, is, in effect, asking for the benefit of one part of L46B with which he is familar (L46B3a) but not the consequences of another part of L46B (the parenthetical in the first paragraph) with which he presumably is not. Put that way, it doesn't sound like a position worthy of much sympathy. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 07:52:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLqGk14883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:52:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from web1-rme.xtra.co.nz (web1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HLqBH14879 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:52:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] by web1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011017214642.COVN18079.web1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:46:42 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 9:46:41 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011017214642.COVN18079.web1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[127.0.0.1]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Steve Willner > Date: 2001/10/18 Thu AM 03:44:44 GMT+12:00 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > > From: Grant Sterling > > If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played > > before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy > > for him, > > Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card > dummy places in the played position? > -- Possibly L74B1 B. Etiquette As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 1. paying insufficient attention to the game. in conjuction with L74A1 A. Proper Attitude 1. Courtesy A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times . Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 07:59:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HLw2O14897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:58:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HLvuH14893 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 07:57:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA26218 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18922 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:52:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110172152.RAA18922@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card > > dummy places in the played position? > From: Wayne > Possibly L74B1 > > B. Etiquette > As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > 1. paying insufficient attention to the game. East was paying careful attention to the game. He was studying his hand to decide which club to play. (Maybe L74B1 would apply in the "Wendy" case, but I don't think you can apply it in more common cases.) To Eric L.: if you let East change his card, it is because you judge the declaring side has done something wrong. That would seem to make the club AI to EW but UI to NS. I don't see how you allow the club to be withdrawn but make it UI to EW. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 08:59:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HMwZK14936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:58:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HMwUH14932 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:58:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15tzYa-000Lu8-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:53:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:52:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: Grant Sterling >> If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played >> before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy >> for him, > >Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card >dummy places in the played position? The Law of Common-sense. If you know the Laws of Bridge, then you know that an incomplete designation is something that requires a decision, and common-sense requires that you look to make sure that any decision that declarer and dummy have reached is the same as you would. If you do not know the Laws of Bridge, when there is an incomplete designation, common-sense requires you to look to find out what card is played. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 09:11:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HNBkO14956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:11:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HNBfH14952 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:11:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([147.11.36.222]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA15461 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: [BLML] Law 40D Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:10:56 -0700 Message-ID: <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here is an odd little question: What can't be regulated using L40D. We have already seen examples where Law 40D has been used to effectly ban natural opening bids. For example, the ACBL forbids players to use any conventional bids following a 1N opening that could be made with less than 10 HCP. For all intents and purposes, this is equivalent to banning this opening bid. Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of conventions unless players chose to play 5 card majors? From what I can tell, the answer to this question is yes. The WBF clearly seems to believe that Law 40D can be used to extend the regulatory power of a sponsoring authority to ban behaviours that it does not like. Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of conventions by right handed players? What is the difference between the two cases? For whats its worth: Law 40D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO84P/9ZbGc4pZHvJEQKymACgjRbtqqIVSUzAnjl9BwzDT3Up7wMAoIqW d+RLUuucjh26gEX3tcKETeal =EsuA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 09:52:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9HNpGq14977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:51:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9HNpAH14973 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:51:11 +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 QAA12431; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:45:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200110172345.QAA12431@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 40D In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:10:56 PDT." <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:45:38 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > Here is an odd little question: > > What can't be regulated using L40D. > > We have already seen examples where Law 40D has been used to effectly > ban natural opening bids. For example, the ACBL forbids players to > use any conventional bids following a 1N opening that could be made > with less than 10 HCP. For all intents and purposes, this is > equivalent to banning this opening bid. > > Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of > conventions unless players chose to play 5 card majors? From what I > can tell, the answer to this question is yes. The WBF clearly seems > to believe that Law 40D can be used to extend the regulatory power of > a sponsoring authority to ban behaviours that it does not like. > > Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of > conventions by right handed players? > > What is the difference between the two cases? My impression (although I can't find a Law to base it on) is that SO's can, say, ban conventions over major-suit openings that don't promise 5+ cards, but they wouldn't be able to ban conventions that have nothing to do with the major-suit opening, just because of aspects of their system that have no relevance to the current hand. Thus, I don't think they can say "Takeout doubles are illegal if the partnership's major-suit openings don't promise 5 cards." But they could say that, for instance, Jacoby 2NT over a major-suit opening is only allowed if the opening promises 5 cards. -- 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 Oct 18 11:03:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9I10dp15045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:00:39 +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 f9I10XH15039 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:00:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-102-192.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.102.192] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15u1Sh-0002rZ-00; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:55:04 +0100 Message-ID: <000201c1576f$8d49e0a0$c066063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , Cc: References: <15f.274212b.28ff0f69@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:37:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > Kojak -- the newly minted GOS. > +=+ mint sauce goes with lamb +=+ :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 11:03:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9I10i215049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:00:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9I10cH15044 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:00:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from host62-6-102-192.dialup.lineone.co.uk ([62.6.102.192] helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.worldonline.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #3) id 15u1Sm-0002rZ-00; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:55:09 +0100 Message-ID: <000301c1576f$904df8e0$c066063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Endicott, Paul, DC" Subject: [BLML] Trip abroad Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 01:51:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:23:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from c1r5i8 (pool0445.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.135.190]) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA08833 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005801c1577a$fc0076c0$be87b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <200110171926.MAA07938@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead -- DWS' Americanization Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:17:04 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tsk, tsk, Adam. In defense of our esteemed DWS, surely he was just following his self-avowed "common-scents" approach; that is, following his nose for Americanized English as bastardized by those of us in the colonies. That he tweaked us with the infrequent (but acceptable) variant "practise" certainly falls within the unwritten laws of informal humorous writing. That you ragged on him, as though he were guilty of actual "malpractise" (a variant *not* in informed, literate use in the colonies), is out of character for you and has been logged against your usually stellar record of accuracy in BLML writing. :)) For your penance, please write "mea culpa" one hundred times. :) Where you do have him caught red-handed, incontrovertibly, is that he *has* shammed your surname [as "Benescham" (sic)] in his "Proposed Changes in Claims Laws" screen at http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm, despite my lobbying him privately on your behalf. Tom Wood, high up in Crestline CA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead > > > Gordon Rainsford writes > > >At 12:02 am +0100 17/10/01, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> > > >> Just to show you how bad my defense is, > > > > > >...but your American is coming along very well :) > > > > Practising for Vegas ... > > As long as you're practising, you might start by typing "practicing" > (with a C) a hundred times . . . > > -- 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 Oct 18 15:02:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9I51D124710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:01:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9I518H24706 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:01:08 +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 f9I4tfw18897 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00ab01c15790$e6fe09c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:53:11 -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: "Grant Sterling" > a) No law that I can see tells us what to do if > declarer simultaneously designates two different cards from > dummy. [Marv, IIRC, and someone else have suggested that > in such a case declarer's verbal statement would take > precedence, but I see no legal basis for this, especially > when the verbal designation did not fit L46a.] I opted out of this thread, but since you mentioned my name... L46A says a player *should* use proper form by clearly stating both suit and rank, but L45B says a card is played when it is named. If merely named by rank, the call for the card is "incomplete," in which case L46B3(a) applies to make it complete: Declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick. I fail to see how some finger-pointing, whose precise direction is probably impossible to know by anyone but dummy, can have equal status with the clear wording of that law. Nevertheless, I agree that if the TD determines the club ace was designated inadvertently [it *was* designated, per L46B3(a)], then that card can be changed if the "without pause for thought" criterion is met. That's for the TD decide, and there is no point in arguing matters that must be settled according to his judgment. 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 Oct 18 15:34:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9I5Xgb26865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:33:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9I5XaH26861 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:33:37 +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 f9I5SAw10690 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d601c15795$6b033340$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 40D Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:22:32 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Richard Willey" > > Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of > conventions unless players chose to play 5 card majors? Evidently, yes. > Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of > conventions by right handed players? Evidently, yes. There seems to be no adherence to the principle of "equal protection under the laws" when writing SO regulations. If there were, the answer to those questions would be "no." Neither major suit opening policy nor handedness could be considered as grounds for barring a convention. It is grossly unfair to bar the use of "standard" conventions that follow a natural call just because it has a range that is disliked by those who write the regulations. I can see the barring of a convention that is especially designed to handle a particular point range (perhaps), but barring a general convention such as Stayman or Jacoby is truly unreasonable. There should be a statement in the Laws that a convention, if allowed, must be allowed for all pairs competing in an event. 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 Oct 18 19:55:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9I9smT10132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:54:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9I9sgH10128 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:54:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.78.90] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15u9nZ-00000F-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:49:10 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:49:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Steve Willner writes > >> From: Grant Sterling > >> If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played > >> before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy > >> for him, > > > >Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card > >dummy places in the played position? > > The Law of Common-sense. What is the number of that Law, please? > If you know the Laws of Bridge, then you know that an incomplete > designation is something that requires a decision, and common-sense > requires that you look to make sure that any decision that declarer and > dummy have reached is the same as you would. You have said many times that players do not need to know the Laws; their friendly neighbourhood TD will sort out all their problems for them. (This is, of course, not true, but it is your argument, not mine.) A TD called to a table where declarer has asked for "Ace" from dummy should read Law 46B3 and determine that the ace requested is the ace of the suit in which dummy won the last trick. If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. I do not see why I should have to remedy declarer's deficient behaviour, nor why I should have to attempt to follow the extraneous communication between declarer and dummy in order to determine which ace has actually been played. If trick n was won by a club in dummy, then a request for "Ace" at trick n+1 is a request for the ace of clubs, and no amount of arm-waving can change this fact. > If you do not know the Laws of Bridge, when there is an incomplete > designation, common-sense requires you to look to find out what card is > played. No, it does not. Common sense dictates that declarer should designate one and only one card, by naming it without ambiguity or by picking it up. No defender should be expected to have to deal with a situation in which declarer names one card and points at another, then claims that "of course" the card he was pointing at, rather than the card he has named, is the card he has played. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 21:03:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IB3F710564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:03:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9IB39H10547 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:03:09 +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 MAA10713; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:54:24 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA02814; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:57:32 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011019125123.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:57:30 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse In-Reply-To: <004901c15739$a7a75bc0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:19 17/10/2001 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >AG : I'm entirely with Marv on this issue, especially regarding the >paragraph hereunder : >Danny Kleinman opines that declarer must lose to the queen even if >it is singleton! He has seen experts make such supposedly >"irrational" plays, and would therefore consider losing to a >singleton queen merely "careless or inferior," not irrational. AG : that's a case I encountered. Since there are cases where the security play against the Queen is not available (the need to cope with Qxxx onside can make the security play impossible), declarer should be deemed not to know whether it is available here, ie he doesn't make the security play when it is possible and necessary to do it. Not recognizing that he may do it (or not recognizing he may not) is careless, not irrational, even for a great player. A general law could be : if line #2 is clearly best, and if there are some vaguely resembling cases where line #1 is needed, using line #1 in lieu of line #2 is inferior, not irrational, and may be imposed on declarer. Regards, Alain. >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 22:14:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ICDW614971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:13:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9ICDQH14967 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA00937; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:04:41 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA01789; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:07:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011019140513.00a16280@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:07:48 +0200 To: "Richard Willey" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 40D In-Reply-To: <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:10 17/10/2001 -0700, Richard Willey wrote: >Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of >conventions unless players chose to play 5 card majors? From what I >can tell, the answer to this question is yes. AG : yes, they could. Whether it would be a wise move is another problem. They could. >Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of >conventions by right handed players? AG : no, they could not. All players must be equal in rights (and lefts). Regards, alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 22:17:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ICHkb14989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:17:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9ICHcH14980 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:17:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.154]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9ICC7T14149 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:12:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCE8F2B.6FCE6A0@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:13:31 +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] Played Card References: <3BCCF268.1811F465@vwalther.de> <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20011017171628.00abc220@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > > My original inclination on this problem was to allow the defender to > follow suit without penalty (other than his club being UI to his > partner), but the arguments to date have convinced me otherwise. > > A defender who is not familiar with L46B and hears declarer call "ace" > when dummy has two aces will not know which ace is played. He cannot > follow suit until he finds out which ace was called, either because > declarer subsequently specifies (or respecifies verbally) the suit, or > because dummy physically plays one of the two aces. > > A defender who is familiar with the entirety of L46B, OTOH, would know > that L46B3a applies only when it is not declarer's incontrovertable > intention to play some card other than the one specified by L46B3a, and > should therefore know not to follow to the latter unless or until he is > satisfied that this is not the case. > > Our defender, who would like to retract his club and play a spade > without penalty, is, in effect, asking for the benefit of one part of > L46B with which he is familar (L46B3a) but not the consequences of > another part of L46B (the parenthetical in the first paragraph) with > which he presumably is not. Put that way, it doesn't sound like a > position worthy of much sympathy. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Well, sympathy or not, that is what L46B says ! Yes, he has specified the Club Ace by one part, and the Spade Ace by one other ! The Law caters for this, so whether or not we have sympathy for declarer has no baring on our ruling. As for your argument that defender, if he knows that L46B says the club ace is played, he should also know that the spade ace is played, I have this to say : this is the one answer I got wrong on my IntTD exam, so who can blame a poor defender for knowing only part of the Laws ? I echo Kojak's feelings that far too many messages have been spent on an easy one such as this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 22:17:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ICHoA14990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:17:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9ICHfH14983 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:17:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-162-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.162.154]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9ICCBT14184 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:12:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCE912D.3C24762@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:22:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011017103422.00a1dd40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant is right in saying that the Ace of spades has been designated all the while. I will scratch his references to the possibility that the "change" was not inadvertent and that the club is the played card, and continue from there : Grant Sterling wrote: > > > a) You rule that the designation was incomplete > but declarer's intention was incontrovertible. In this > case, the trump A is deemed to have been the played > card from the beginning, and the club is a revoke. I > would like to see a law allowing its retraction without > penalty, but I don't yet see one [unless I can convince > declarer to ask me to waive the penalty under L81.] L45C4b and L47C. Now indeed Grant, this only refers to a "change" of designation, not to this case, where you are right in saying there never was a change. But considering the amount of time we needed to decide whether or not it is a change, can we not put this down to yet another incidence where the WBFLC have issued a clear meaning in less than clear wording ? -- 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 Oct 18 22:37:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ICawL15009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:36:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9ICarH15005 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:36:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9ICVOd10557 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011018081841.00b0b9c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:31:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <200110172152.RAA18922@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:52 PM 10/17/01, Steve wrote: >To Eric L.: if you let East change his card, it is because you judge >the declaring side has done something wrong. That would seem to make >the club AI to EW but UI to NS. I don't see how you allow the club to >be withdrawn but make it UI to EW. Agreed. That was my first instinctive inclination (going by the Kaplan philosophy of figuring out an equitable ruling and then finding the law to support it), but reading the thread has indeed convinced me to come down on the side of those who would rule that East has revoked. If we don't like this, and believe it to be a significant enough problem to warrant a cure (which I doubt), we need new law. "L46C. If the player to dummy's left fails to follow suit to the played card when able to do so, and the Director determines that his failure to follow suit was a direct consequence of declarer's incomplete specification of the card played from dummy, the Director may allow the player to substitute a legal card without penalty, but his holding of the card played originally is unauthorized information to his partner." Or some such. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 23:00:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9ID0U515031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:00:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9ID0OH15027 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:00:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9ICst409800 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:54:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011018083853.00ab9260@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:54:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:49 AM 10/18/01, David wrote: >You have said many times that players do not need to know the Laws; >their friendly neighbourhood TD will sort out all their problems for >them. (This is, of course, not true, but it is your argument, not mine.) >A TD called to a table where declarer has asked for "Ace" from dummy >should read Law 46B3 and determine that the ace requested is the ace of >the suit in which dummy won the last trick. No, the TD should read the entire applicable law, which is the first paragraph of L46B, followed by the first sentence of L46B3, follwed by the entirety of L46B3a. >If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will >assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. You will only assume this because you have been mislead by the TD, who has read only from L46B3 without reading the first part of L46B. >I do not see why I should have to remedy declarer's deficient behaviour, >nor why I should have to attempt to follow the extraneous communication >between declarer and dummy in order to determine which ace has actually >been played. It's not at all clear that declarer's behavior has been deficient. He has played the card by "otherwise designat[ing]" it, as provided by L45C4a. True, his designation was incomplete, but that is covered by L46; his designation of the SA was no more "deficient" than had he intended the CA, said "ace", and not pointed at anything. If you are one of those players who chooses not to know the laws and to let the TD sort out any problem, you will not be in a position to "know" which ace was played until the TD tells you. Why would you know, or assume, that "ace" meant the CA if you weren't in essence attempting to make your own (or anticipate the TD's) L46 ruling? > If trick n was won by a club in dummy, then a request for >"Ace" at trick n+1 is a request for the ace of clubs, and no amount of >arm-waving can change this fact. Arm-waving can't, but declarer's incontrovertible intention can, else the parenthetical in the first paragraph of L46B would be entirely meaningless. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 18 23:15:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IDEvx15060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:14:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IDEqH15056 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:14:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15uCvC-000KDL-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:15:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead References: <200110171926.MAA07938@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200110171926.MAA07938@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes > >> Gordon Rainsford writes >> >At 12:02 am +0100 17/10/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >> Just to show you how bad my defense is, >> > >> >...but your American is coming along very well :) >> >> Practising for Vegas ... > >As long as you're practising, you might start by typing "practicing" >(with a C) a hundred times . . . Shan't. Anyway, 'practising' *has* got a C. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 02:35:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IGY0619526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:34:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9IGXrH19522 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:33:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f9IGSQw03887 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003101c157f1$d1b1a660$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> <3BCC3E7C.3139F5D1@village.uunet.be> <004201c15715$1fc1aa40$255f063e@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:24:31 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > The number > of tricks actually made at the table through IWoG defence is > not relevant to the assessment of the probability of making > a different number. Except for the NOS, for whom it is the only relevant criterion when adjusting its score, making the probability 100%. That's according to the CoP, which thankfully has not been adopted in ACBL-land. This statement constitutes an interpretation of the Laws, not an implementation of the Laws. Unless the WBFLC agrees (in writing) with this interpretation, we who are not governed by the CoP can rightfully question it. For us, the only authorized interpreter of the Laws is the LC. Wife Alice played in 3NT a few weeks ago. It was not only a bad contract, but she received a killing lead from Q10 doubleton of clubs. She held A8, with 7xx in dummy. After taking the second round, she played some high cards and then had to surrender the lead in order to establish enough tricks. All she could do was hope that whoever won the concession trick had no more clubs. Unfortunately the long club hand (with J96 of clubs, having unaccountably played the king earlier) won the trick. However, the defender had forgotten that her clubs were high and led the six of clubs to dummy's 7. Alice took the rest for +600 instead of -300. Now that was one of the most irrational plays I've ever seen from a non-novice (the pair placed first in section). Let us suppose that we had reached 3NT illegally, I going from 2NT to 3NT based on some UI. The opponents keep the table result, but our score gets adjusted back to 2NT. You would adjust our score to -200, not +150, because the irrational play was so improbable. That can't be right. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 02:58:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IGwFZ19545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:58:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9IGvuH19541 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:58:05 +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 f9IGpiL27614; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:51:44 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:52:28 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: In-Reply-To: <00ab01c15790$e6fe09c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:53 PM 10/17/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: I probably should let this thread drop, but both Marvin and David Burn have commented along the same lines recently, and I couldn't resist replying. My apologies to those who think I should shut up, and to those who think everyone should shut up about this. >From: "Grant Sterling" > > > a) No law that I can see tells us what to do if > > declarer simultaneously designates two different cards from > > dummy. [Marv, IIRC, and someone else have suggested that > > in such a case declarer's verbal statement would take > > precedence, but I see no legal basis for this, especially > > when the verbal designation did not fit L46a.] > >I opted out of this thread, but since you mentioned my name... I mentioned your name because I thought you had argued that a verbal designation must take precedence over any non-verbal designation, if two designations have been made. My argument was that I _might_ accept this if the verbal designation clearly met the requirements of L46a, but not if it does not [as in this case]. >L46A says a player *should* use proper form by clearly stating both >suit and rank, but L45B says a card is played when it is named. If Sigh. L45b says that a card is played if it is named _or otherwise designated_. >merely named by rank, the call for the card is "incomplete," in >which case L46B3(a) applies to make it complete: Declarer is deemed >to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick. Unless his different intention is incontrovertible. >I >fail to see how some finger-pointing, whose precise direction is >probably impossible to know by anyone but dummy, can have equal >status with the clear wording of that law. Because your version of the lawbook, and David's, seem not to contain the phrases I have mentioned above. The 'clear wording of the law' says that sometimes a card is played that has not been named. It also says that an incomplete designation is not always fulfilled by adding the suit from the last played trick. If distinctly pointing [there is nothing in the case that suggests that the direction of declarer's pointing was in any way ambiguous] at a card is not an 'other designation' or an 'incontrovertible intention', then nothing is. I can understand those who think the lawbook _shouldn't_ contain those phrases, but given that it does I honestly don't see how anyone can claim they don't apply here. >Nevertheless, I agree that if the TD determines the club ace was >designated inadvertently [it *was* designated, per L46B3(a)], then It was _not_ designated, per the parenthetical comment. >that card can be changed if the "without pause for thought" >criterion is met. That's for the TD decide, and there is no point in >arguing matters that must be settled according to his judgment. > >Marv Take _THAT_, you dead horse. [Not you, Marv.] Respectful to all non-equines, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 03:06:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IH69h19571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:06:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9IH5pH19567 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:06:03 +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 f9IGxQL01727; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:59:31 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011018115256.00a15b60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:00:08 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3BCE912D.3C24762@village.uunet.be> References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016113634.00a030c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011017103422.00a1dd40@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:22 AM 10/18/01 +0200, you wrote: >Grant is right in saying that the Ace of spades has been >designated all the while. >I will scratch his references to the possibility that the >"change" was not inadvertent and that the club is the played >card, and continue from there : > >Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > > > a) You rule that the designation was incomplete > > but declarer's intention was incontrovertible. In this > > case, the trump A is deemed to have been the played > > card from the beginning, and the club is a revoke. I > > would like to see a law allowing its retraction without > > penalty, but I don't yet see one [unless I can convince > > declarer to ask me to waive the penalty under L81.] > >L45C4b and L47C. > >Now indeed Grant, this only refers to a "change" of >designation, not to this case, where you are right in saying >there never was a change. > >But considering the amount of time we needed to decide >whether or not it is a change, can we not put this down to >yet another incidence where the WBFLC have issued a clear >meaning in less than clear wording ? I would gladly accept such a ruling, as I would accept a ruling under L47e. I don't think the literal wording of either law allows such a ruling, but as an advocate of TD flexibility I can hardly condemn such a decision in a case like this. I suppose that there are many who regard that as a sign of the apocalypse. >Herman DE WAEL [I still think there's something to be said for L81c8, though.] Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 03:14:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IHEc719607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:14:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9IHERH19603 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:14:27 +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 f9IH7rL07133; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:07:59 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017112713.00a148e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:08:34 -0500 To: "Konrad Ciborowski" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: <005e01c156e1$3aeac7e0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016120347.00a14c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9IHEYH19604 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:56 AM 10/17/01 +0200, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >I have discovered on numerous occasions that we have >very different philosophies of the game; I guess we shall >never come to an agreement but anyway it is a pleasure >to discuss. I'm glad it's a pleasure--the pleasure is mutual. :) >The problem is that in bridge the TD isn't present at the table >and doesn't watch constantly what is going on. He rules >post factum on the basis of what he is told by the players >involved. The Laws should be so written that, whenever possible, >he shouldn't be forced to judge post factum whether, for instance, the >declarer's intention was incontrovertible or not. "How exactly Obviously, I just disagree. If you'll forgive the disgression: In Plato's _Statesman_ and _Republic_, he holds that the rulers should have wide latitude in making laws, because that allows for the greatest justice, since the laws can be tailored to individual situations. In his _Laws_ he holds that the laws should be very rigid and not subject to much latitude, since this will curb abuses. The difference is because in the first two books he is assuming that the rulers are wise and discerning, and so will generally make good judgements. In the third, he is assuming that we have no such expert rulers, and so the basically ordinary idiots who stumble into authority would screw things up if given much leeway. I am an 'early' Platonist about TDs--I think most of them can give pretty decent judgement rulings most of the time, so I want to give them the flexibility to achieve just results. Many arguments on this list are from 'late' Platonists, who think TDs and ACs are too inconsistent to make good rulings, or who think that players don't like inconsistent rulings even if they were good. I understand this position, I just don't agree with it. [Other arguments are made by non-Platonists who hold that justice is defined by the laws no matter what they say.] >did you point to the AS? Could you demonstrate it?" "No, >I didn't see him point to anything at all but I heard him >say <>" "Come on, man, you couldn't fail to see that I >meant the spade ace, not the club ace" etc. > >And even if the TD were present at the table all the time he >would have the same problem. Several years ago >an opponent changed his call at my table. As it was >a small friendly student tournament the TD asked me >whether in my opinion the change was made >"with pause for thought" or not. My reply was "How >the hell should I know?" Yes I was sitting half a meter away >from my opponent and I heard what he said but I still was unable to say >whether the change was "after a pause for thought" or not. Odd. I usually don't have much trouble. >It is far easier to determine whether a player said "ace" >or "two clubs" at all; hardly anyone has doubts about this but >it is much harder to tell how fast did the player change his >call or whether the move of his hand was "pointing" to >a particular card or not. I certainly agree the other rule is easier. >I wonder, Grant, why are you so afraid of the "Pièce touchée, pièce jouée" >rule in bridge. I have never heard any chess player complaining >about "merciless" rules because of which he lost a game >already won. And this rule doesn't make people quit playing chess; >they accept it as a natural part of the game. I cannot remember >anyone advocating for a change in the chess magazines. >(I read them fairly regularly although I play chess at the zero >level; well my bridge partners claim that I... never mind :-)) > >My impression is that the newcomers in bridge think that this is >a natural state of affairs and they are surprised that people >can take back the plays and calls they already made. I don't have much experience with newcomers to bridge. My experience with newcomers to _duplicate_ is quite the opposite--they are used to kitchen table bridge where such corrections are routine. >And this "piece touched, piece played" rule, while not >driving anyone from the game, simplifies a great deal >of things in chess. I don't remember any ruling of this >kind being debated in chess magazines or mailing lists. >So why wouldn't it be a good idea? Yes, Grant, I know >that you wouldn't want, as you once wrote, to lose a match >because you accidentally pulled out the "2NT" card instead >of the "2S" card. I wouldn't want that either; yes, it hurts. >But I wouldn't to lose a match because I failed to see a >100% line and went down in an iron-clad contract yet this is what >happens to me from time to time; and it hurts twice as much. >But that doesn't make me think that I should be allowed to >replay the board. It hurts twice as much because it's a bridge mistake, whereas the other isn't. I do not play tournament chess. In the casual games I have played [I am a terrible player] I do not enforce the "piece touched" rule against my opponents. But even if I did, I would not, for example, require an opponent to move his King because he accidentally touched it while trying to grab his adjacent Queen. I do not like L25_B_, that allows someone who has done something deliberate but stupid to 'take back' his call. I would not like a Law that allowed you to replay your contract because you botched it. But I do not want bridge games to be decided because someone was trying to bid 2S and accidentally grabbed the adjacent 2NT card, or pointed to a card and said "Ace" while an opponent happened to be daydreaming or looking at Wendy or something, or claimed without remembering to say "I will cash my dummy winners first so I don't trap myself in my hand". I wouldn't want to win a chess game because my opponent had a muscle spasm and dropped a piece he was moving before he reached the square he intended to move it to. I want to win my games because I'm a better player than my opponents, or lose them if they're better than me. I do not think that manual dexterity or sublimity of expression are bridge skills. Part of the problem is that many, actually most of the players I play bridge against regularly are seniors with significant (but not debilitating) mental or physical limitations. _I_ have never mispulled a bidding card [I'm sure I will someday, but I haven't yet], I haven't revoked in the last few years, and my claim statements are the clearest of anyone in my club. But many of my opponents regularly mis-pull cards for physical reasons, revoke due to poor eyesight or attention deficiencies, and make ambiguous claim statements due to unclear expression of ideas. I do like to win at bridge, but not because of these reasons. Perhaps if I regularly played in international tournaments against people who devote their lives to bridge and have not deteriorated physically, I would have a different attitude. I doubt it, though. > Konrad Ciborowski PS: I don't mean to imply that you're trying to take advantage of the elderly or handicapped! I'm sorry if it sounded that way. My point is that stricter standards for proper designation, proper claim statements, "card touched, card played", etc., do not just penalize those who are culpably lazy or inattentive, but those who make similar mistakes for other reasons. If I played chess against such opponents, I'd probably let them take back their moves, too. Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 04:10:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9II6lt19633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 04:06:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9II6gH19629 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 04:06:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA06119 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:01:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA26474 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:01:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:01:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110181801.OAA26474@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > It's not at all clear that declarer's behavior has been deficient. He > has played the card by "otherwise designat[ing]" it, as provided by > L45C4a. True, his designation was incomplete, but that is covered by > L46; his designation of the SA was no more "deficient" than had he > intended the CA, said "ace", and not pointed at anything. Also no _less_ deficient. Either is an infraction of L46A. > From: Grant Sterling > L45b says that a card is played if it is named _or > otherwise designated_. I don't think anyone has denied the above. The argument is that the method of designation is illegal. Declarer must still play the card designated, but East may have extra 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 Fri Oct 19 04:34:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IIVnC19654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 04:31:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IIViH19650 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 04:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.139.97] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15uHrx-0006EO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:26:14 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c15802$5e414800$618b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:26:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > Sigh. > L45b says that a card is played if it is named _or > otherwise designated_. Sigh no more. The words "or otherwise designated" indicate no more than that a card may be played in some way other than by being named. But once a card is named, then it is played. If a declarer utters the word "ace", then he has named (and played) the ace of the suit in which dummy won the last trick. There is (understandable) confusion here. Some believe that declarer has in some mysterious way designated two cards to be led from dummy. He has not; what he has done in his own mind is to designate a single card by naming its rank, but "otherwise designating" its suit. But this is not a proper form of playing a card from dummy (per L46A), and (omitting for the moment the parenthesis in L46B) it is necessary to make some determination about which card has for the moment been played. L46C is quite clear on the point: declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick (for his action in pointing to the spade suit does not constitute a completion of his designation except in his own mind and, perhaps, of dummy's). It is not reasonably to be expected that a defender should not only have to listen to the cards called by declarer, but should also have to watch declarer's hands and wait for a card to be physically detached from dummy before playing to the trick. To return to an earlier point, suppose that a declarer calls for "the ace of spades". Now, a defender does not have to wait for dummy to detach the ace of spades before following suit; once the card is named, it is played, and it is now the turn of the defender to the left of dummy to play. This is, of course, quite obvious, whatever DWS may say about changing gears. > Unless his different intention is incontrovertible. Oh, quite so. There is some evidence, from declarer's actions (and perhaps from the hand itself) that his intention was not to play the ace of clubs but the ace of spades. If he can convince a TD that his different intention was incontrovertible, and that no pause for thought supervened once it became clear that the ace of clubs was being treated as the card played, then he is permitted (per L45C4b) to change his play from dummy, and a defender who has already played a club may retract it without penalty (per L47D). But this is not to say that declarer has not played the ace of clubs. > Because your version of the lawbook, and David's, > seem not to contain the phrases I have mentioned above. I believe my lawbook to be complete; I also believe that my reading skills are sufficient to understand it. I have made no comment on the question of whether declarer is compelled to continue on the basis that the ace of clubs is irrevocably played - that is a matter for the TD's interpretation of the incident in the light of L45. But whether it is or is not irrevocably played, once declarer has uttered the word "ace", it is for the moment certainly played. > It was _not_ designated, per the parenthetical comment. Yes, it was. Otherwise, what does the Law mean? There are declarers who, when leading from dummy, will call simply for "jack" or some such. There is only one jack in dummy, so that is the card played. But the effect of such behaviour is simply to disconcert the opponents (and perhaps dummy, but he does not matter), because they have to work out which card has in fact been played, and their concentration may be broken thereby. I know that Herman thinks I have been over-reacting to what is apparently a small lacuna in the Laws, but I tell you this: such incomplete designations are a particularly irritating form of gamesmanship, and I in company with many others would like to see them removed from the game, in the interests of enhanced justice and enjoyment for all. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 05:01:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IJ1Cd19676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 05:01:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IJ16H19672 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 05:01:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.139.97] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15uIKI-0005Dq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:55:31 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c15806$75516080$618b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:55:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > David Burn writes > > >Nowhere in any manual on "How to Drive" > >does DWS's sentence appear; > > I never suggested it did. No, but the trouble is that by creating an analogy between something that is in an authoritative work (such as the Laws) and something that is not, you seek to establish an equivalence between the two that they do not possess. The Laws say that declarer plays a card by naming it, after which X happens; you say that the card is not played until X has happened because - and only because - you have not changed gears having only depressed the clutch. But nobody was asserting that you had changed gears until you had moved the gear lever; that is a straw man which you have constructed. As I have said elsewhere, if declarer names a card in accordance with L46A, that card is played the moment it is named - the next player does not have to wait until the card has been physically moved by dummy before playing his own card. > > it is something that he has constructed to > >bolster a specious argument. > > It is something I thought of to try to indicate what I meant. What is > wrong with that? In what way is that "specious"? If an analogy on which an argument is based is false, which is the case above, then the argument is devoid of content, empty, or to use a more recondite term "specious". > When I argue I try to make it easy for people to see what I am talking > about, and certainly one way I try to do so is to think of an equivalent > situation for comparison. This is what I did this time. Why is this > wrong? Because the situations are in no way equivalent, and for you to present them as if they were is... well, I will not use the term again. Analogies are helpful, and certainly one of the ways in which you do help many people is by constructive use of valid anaolgies. On this occasion, however, your analogy is false (I hope that it will be understood that all these judgements on my part are qualified by the phrase "in my opinion" without my having to use it repeatedly), and false analogies are not only unhelpful but downright counter-productive. > Are you suggesting I should use words that people do not understand > fully so they will think I am right without understanding? I prefer > people who read my stuff to understand it. Not at all - as I say, in the great majority of cases you take pains to justify your arguments by careful reasoning and valid comparisons with equivalent situations, and your contributions are the more valuable thereby. But, in keeping with an antique Roman, indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 05:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IJLIc19693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 05:21:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IJLCH19689 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 05:21:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from karel600mhz (r-airlock143.esatclear.ie [194.165.171.143]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA18333 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:15:37 +0100 From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:21:24 +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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all This is my first post on this forum. It is a somewhat fearful posting as there are some very experienced names on this list who may find some of my queries ... well .... silly. But hey I'm here to learn & gain some knowledge so I'll expect a few bumps, just not too many please :)) I'll give you the scenario, and let you loose Teams, vul vs not, dealer RHO S x Rho U Lho pd H AJ9 P 1C 2S(1) P D KQ9x 3S DBL P 4H C AKT9x P P 4S P P X All pass (1) weak Jump Overcall, 6 spades <11pts (normally 6-10). 4S makes - can't be stopped. LHO's hand RHO's hand S AT98xxx S Kxx H Qx H Kxxx D AJx D xx C x C J8xx (1) is this call legal ?? It does not match the alerted bid. (2) Assuming it is legal , (they can claim the bidder deviated from the system, and his pd is as much in the dark as we are) - is this now a precedence case ?? Do subsequent alerts for this bid now have to say ... <12 pts, 6+ spades ?? (3) If not - where is the line drawn ?? How can we stop such, dare I say, "hidden" partnership agreements ?? (I have been informed from various sources that a case such as the one above, does not constitute a precedence case - the reasoning is that so long as the bidders partner bids as if it were a weak 2 6-10pts 6 spades, the actual hand shape and points can be almost what ever they want.) The reason I posted this case - to get a definitive answer from people who know. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 06:33:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IKX7u28693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 06:33:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9IKWuH28635 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 06:32:56 +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 f9IKQhL11030; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:26:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:26:47 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: In-Reply-To: <000901c15802$5e414800$618b7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:26 PM 10/18/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Grant wrote: > > > Sigh. > > L45b says that a card is played if it is named _or > > otherwise designated_. > >Sigh no more. The words "or otherwise designated" indicate no more than >that a card may be played in some way other than by being named. I sighed because Marvin quoted half the law and said "the words of the law are clear", when it was obvious that my position involved the other half of the law. I think that if I point at the card to be played, then I have designated that that card be played. >But >once a card is named, then it is played. If a declarer utters the I agree. Also, once a card has been otherwise designated, it is played. >word >"ace", then he has named (and played) the ace of the suit in which dummy >won the last trick. Unless his different intention was incontrovertible, you mean. :) >There is (understandable) confusion here. Some believe that declarer has >in some mysterious way designated two cards to be led from dummy. He has >not; what he has done in his own mind is to designate a single card Let us return to a simpler case. Declarer says "play that", and clearly points to the two of diamonds, or perhaps says nothing at all but points to the two of diamonds in a manner which indicates that he's trying to get it played. Your position apparently must be that he has designated no card at all. My position is that he has designated the two of diamonds. This declarer pointed at the ace of trumps and said "Ace". I do not see how anyone can say that in the former case the two of diamonds has been otherwise designated, but in this case he has otherwise designated nothing at all. He has otherwise designated the ace of trumps. Whether he has _also_ verbally designated the ace of clubs remains to be seen. >by >naming its rank, but "otherwise designating" its suit. But this is not a >proper form of playing a card from dummy (per L46A), and (omitting It is not the proper way of calling for the card to be played, I agree. But, then, virtually all ways of 'otherwise designating' the card to play would be improper, and that doesn't mean the designation didn't take place. An improper designation is still a designation. [Perhaps ex-Pres. Clinton could argue that he really didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky, on the grounds that since he didn't engage in sex in the proper manner, he didn't engage in sex at all.] >for >the moment the parenthesis in L46B) it is necessary to make some >determination about which card has for the moment been played. L46C >is >quite clear on the point: declarer is deemed to have continued the suit >in which dummy won the preceding trick (for his action in pointing to >the spade suit does not constitute a completion of his designation >except in his own mind and, perhaps, of dummy's). This is not what the word "unless" means. If I leave my son instructions to "wash the car unless it rains", I have certainly not instructed him to wash the car in the rain and then "take back" the washing. If it rains, I don't want him to wash the car at all. The parenthetical comment says that the following restrictions apply _unless_ declarer's intention was incontrovertible. That does not mean that we ignore declarer's intention, apply the restrictions, and then go back and change the card played because of his intention. It means that if his intentions were incontrovertible _the rest of the law is inapplicable_. If someone claims without stating a finesse, the law says that he may not be deemed to have taken the finesse _unless_ an opponent has shown out. [Etc.] This does not mean that if an opponent _has_ already shown out, that we adjudicate the board as if the finesse was not taken, and then go back and change our adjudication on the basis of the finesse being taken due to the 'unless' clause! L46b1-5 _do not apply at all_ to a case where declarer's intention was incontrovertible. >It is not reasonably to be expected that a defender should not only have >to listen to the cards called by declarer, but should also have to watch >declarer's hands and wait for a card to be physically detached from >dummy before playing to the trick. To return to an earlier point, Then the law is unreasonable, since the law does require that. [If you're not going to revoke occasionally.] >suppose that a declarer calls for "the ace of spades". Now, a defender >does not have to wait for dummy to detach the ace of spades before >following suit; once the card is named, it is played, and it is now the >turn of the defender to the left of dummy to play. This is, of I quite agree. In this case, defender could have followed suit with a trump without waiting for dummy to play it, since it has been designated. Or, alternatively, he could play a trump since declarer's intention was incontrovertible. [Of course he doesn't know that, because he wasn't watching declarer. But since he knows he wasn't watching declarer, and sees that dummy has played the ace of trumps, it is unwise of him to assume that a) the designation really was complete, and b) declarer's intention was controvertible, and c) dummy has pulled the wrong card, and then follow to the club suit.] Or he could ask dummy why he played the trump ace, in case he has misheard declarer or missed some relevant information like a clear gesture. Or, he could revoke. :) >course, >quite obvious, whatever DWS may say about changing gears. I agree that the naming is sufficient for the playing. Just so that you know that we agree on one thing. :) > > Unless his different intention is incontrovertible. > >Oh, quite so. There is some evidence, from declarer's actions (and >perhaps from the hand itself) that his intention was not to play the ace >of clubs but the ace of spades. If he can convince a TD that his >different intention was incontrovertible, and that no pause for thought >supervened once it became clear that the ace of clubs was being treated >as the card played, then he is permitted (per L45C4b) to change his play >from dummy, and a defender who has already played a club may Contra Grattan, FWIW. I disagree with Grattan sometimes, so I certainly understand if you wish to do so here. >retract it >without penalty (per L47D). But this is not to say that declarer has not >played the ace of clubs. No, indeed. _That_ is not to say it. Because you have applied a law that you are specifically told not to apply. > > Because your version of the lawbook, and David's, > > seem not to contain the phrases I have mentioned above. > >I believe my lawbook to be complete; I also believe that my reading >skills are sufficient to understand it. I have made no comment on the >question of whether declarer is compelled to continue on the basis that >the ace of clubs is irrevocably played - that is a matter for the TD's >interpretation of the incident in the light of L45. But whether it is or >is not irrevocably played, once declarer has uttered the word "ace", it >is for the moment certainly played. > > > It was _not_ designated, per the parenthetical comment. > >Yes, it was. Otherwise, what does the Law mean? The Law means "If declarer's intention is not incontrovertible, apply L46b1-5. If declarer's intention is incontrovertible, play the card he incontrovertibly intended to play and do not apply L46b1-5." That, I think, is how I always read the word "unless". >There are declarers who, when leading from dummy, will call simply for >"jack" or some such. There is only one jack in dummy, so that is the >card played. But the effect of such behaviour is simply to disconcert >the opponents (and perhaps dummy, but he does not matter), because they >have to work out which card has in fact been played, and their >concentration may be broken thereby. I know that Herman thinks I have >been over-reacting to what is apparently a small lacuna in the Laws, but >I tell you this: such incomplete designations are a particularly >irritating form of gamesmanship, and I in company with many others would >like to see them removed from the game, in the interests of enhanced >justice and enjoyment for all. Most people I know don't do this from gamesmanship or anything like that at all. They do it because they think it is perfectly obvious to everyone on the face of the earth that if there's only one J in dummy that that's the card they're playing. I agree that if they are doing it to disconcert the opponents, we can and should rule against them under L74a2, L74c7, etc. >David Burn Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 08:35:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IMXEa03723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:33:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IMX7H03719 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:33:09 +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 WAA24443 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:27:45 GMT Message-ID: <$ZRoqRBQc1z7Ewag@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:26:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20011018083853.00ab9260@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011018083853.00ab9260@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20011018083853.00ab9260@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 05:49 AM 10/18/01, David wrote: > >>You have said many times that players do not need to know the Laws; >>their friendly neighbourhood TD will sort out all their problems for >>them. (This is, of course, not true, but it is your argument, not mine.) >>A TD called to a table where declarer has asked for "Ace" from dummy >>should read Law 46B3 and determine that the ace requested is the ace of >>the suit in which dummy won the last trick. > >No, the TD should read the entire applicable law, which is the first >paragraph of L46B, followed by the first sentence of L46B3, follwed by >the entirety of L46B3a. > >>If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will >>assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. > Look guys, if I am looking at Wendy (or perhaps at my hand), and I hear "Ace", then I *know* the Ace of clubs has been played. I also know that declarer is a devious little shit who would call "Ace" and simultaneously point to the spade suit. I *know* he could have known he might mislead me. Now decide what to do. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 08:42:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IMeat03735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 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 mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IMeTH03731 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:40:30 +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 WAA24476 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:35:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:33:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations 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 , Karel De Raeymaeker writes >Hi all > > >This is my first post on this forum. It is a somewhat fearful posting as >there are some very experienced names on this list who may find some of my >queries ... well .... silly. But hey I'm here to learn & gain some >knowledge so I'll expect a few bumps, just not too many please :)) > > >I'll give you the scenario, and let you loose > >Teams, vul vs not, dealer RHO > >S x Rho U Lho pd >H AJ9 P 1C 2S(1) P >D KQ9x 3S DBL P 4H >C AKT9x P P 4S P > P X All pass > >(1) weak Jump Overcall, 6 spades <11pts (normally 6-10). > >4S makes - can't be stopped. > > >LHO's hand RHO's hand > >S AT98xxx S Kxx >H Qx H Kxxx >D AJx D xx >C x C J8xx > > >(1) is this call legal ?? It does not match the alerted bid. > so what. I've tried 2S on xx KQJxx AJxxx x before now. That doesn't match either >(2) Assuming it is legal , (they can claim the bidder deviated from the >system, and his pd is as much in the dark as we are) - is this now a >precedence case ?? Do subsequent alerts for this bid now have to say ... ><12 pts, 6+ spades ?? "ostensibly 6-10 with 6 spades, or 2551 with a 13 count" would be fine > >(3) If not - where is the line drawn ?? How can we stop such, dare I say, >"hidden" partnership agreements ?? (I have been informed from various >sources that a case such as the one above, does not constitute a precedence >case - the reasoning is that so long as the bidders partner bids as if it >were a weak 2 6-10pts 6 spades, the actual hand shape and points can be >almost what ever they want.) In principle the opponents can do *anything* they want, as long as their partner doesn't take action which suggest they know what's going on. I'm not playing bridge to make your life easy. I'm there because I want to dine off your liver, lungs and kidneys. Nice mini-psyche. > >The reason I posted this case - to get a definitive answer from people who >know. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 09:04:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9IN1rB03760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:01:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.de (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9IN1lH03756 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:01:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd06.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15uM5K-0004gT-04; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:56:18 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.226.219.241]) by fmrl06.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15uM5E-0TxEJsC; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:56:12 +0200 Message-ID: <3BCF5DC1.1A3638FA@vwalther.de> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:54:57 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Gottcheiner , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card (=?iso-8859-1?Q?HHO=BDK?=) Off topic References: <000f01c152f7$0c8929c0$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> <003001c15423$e174c7c0$d255063e@dodona> <5.1.0.14.0.20011016152910.00a7fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Don't take this too seriously, but it did happen ... > [snips] That reminds me... When we just had finished our beginners course in bridge my partner and I decided to take part in the open german pairs championship. Some friends from that course came too. (Our ambition was: We won't be the last ones. In fact we managed to rank as 148 and 149 of 150 ;-) ) Afterwards they told the following story: AQ KJT98 6 JT542 65 KJ987 432 Q65 T54 J8732 AKQ89 - T432 A7 AKQ9 763 The contract was 3 NT played by south. West started by cashing two clubs. East gave a spade and a diamond. Now west played a spade. South started thinking for about 5 minutes. The TD was already calling to change for the next round when South decided what to do. Now everything happened quickly. He called the ace of clubs and then ordered: "A low heart, the king and a small one", playing hearts and the 9 of diamonds from the hand. East and West gave their last diamonds. Now west led the king of spades. "DIRECTOR!!!" When the TD arrived, south told him that West had played the king without being on lead. The TD had a look at souths played cards and found that the ace had been played at trick 5, overtaking the king. He told E/W that they both revoked at trick 6 (the led 9 of hearts). The revoke had been completed by playing the king of spadess (L63A1). The king of spades was led out of turn (L56) and thus became a penalty-card (L50D). It had to be played when south led a club... Result: 3NT+2 Greetings, Volker (PS: The hand is fictious because our friends succesfully tried to forget what had happened) PPS: What is th meaning of HHO½K? -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 09:43:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9INfO203819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9INf9H03806 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15uMhM-000Ojk-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:35:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:30:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <15f.274212b.28ff0f69@aol.com> <000201c1576f$8d49e0a0$c066063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000201c1576f$8d49e0a0$c066063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"Oh! let us never, never doubt > What nobody is sure about!" > [Hilaire Belloc] >+ + + + + + + + + + + > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: ; >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:44 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > >> >> Kojak -- the newly minted GOS. >> >+=+ mint sauce goes with lamb +=+ :-) ... not to mention mutton, and perhaps an old ram .... -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 09:43:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9INfPK03820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9INf8H03803 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15uMhM-000Oji-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:35:38 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:36:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 40D References: <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> In-Reply-To: <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey writes >Here is an odd little question: > >What can't be regulated using L40D. > >We have already seen examples where Law 40D has been used to effectly >ban natural opening bids. For example, the ACBL forbids players to >use any conventional bids following a 1N opening that could be made >with less than 10 HCP. For all intents and purposes, this is >equivalent to banning this opening bid. > >Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of >conventions unless players chose to play 5 card majors? From what I >can tell, the answer to this question is yes. The WBF clearly seems >to believe that Law 40D can be used to extend the regulatory power of >a sponsoring authority to ban behaviours that it does not like. So long as they execute the ban in a legal way, no doubt they could. >Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of >conventions by right handed players? Yes. Of course, the Laws of the country involved may not permit such a rule. >What is the difference between the two cases? Not a lot. The WBF no doubt assumes that regulating authorities are to be trusted to regulate events. Why not? If you get a regulating authority that is not working for the benefit of its members and wishes to act with total irrationality then the presence or absence of L40D is not going to make a tinker's cuss of difference. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 09:43:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9INfR903822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9INf8H03804 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15uMhM-000Ojj-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:35:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:28:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Steve Willner writes >> >> From: Grant Sterling >> >> If the defender didn't look at the card dummy played >> >> before contributing to the trick, I have little sympathy >> >> for him, >> > >> >Why is that? Which law requires the defender to look at the card >> >dummy places in the played position? >> >> The Law of Common-sense. > >What is the number of that Law, please? Your sense of humour is deteriorating. >> If you know the Laws of Bridge, then you know that an incomplete >> designation is something that requires a decision, and common-sense >> requires that you look to make sure that any decision that declarer >and >> dummy have reached is the same as you would. > >You have said many times that players do not need to know the Laws; >their friendly neighbourhood TD will sort out all their problems for >them. (This is, of course, not true, but it is your argument, not mine.) It is not as simple as that, of course. >A TD called to a table where declarer has asked for "Ace" from dummy >should read Law 46B3 and determine that the ace requested is the ace of >the suit in which dummy won the last trick. If that is your view of this case then I shall leave it to you to explain to Grattan, Ton and Kojak why they are wrong to follow the Law as written and that their offerings to this thread are all wrong. >If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will >assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. You may, but the average player will not. You appear to be someone who is prepared to work on part of a Law but not the full Law, and I am afraid that that is the least common-sense position of all. You should either learn the laws, or not. >I do not see why I should have to remedy declarer's deficient behaviour, >nor why I should have to attempt to follow the extraneous communication >between declarer and dummy in order to determine which ace has actually >been played. If trick n was won by a club in dummy, then a request for >"Ace" at trick n+1 is a request for the ace of clubs, and no amount of >arm-waving can change this fact. Me, I am a simple soul, I follow the laws. Does that mean I wave my arms, or not? I am afraid you have lost me. >> If you do not know the Laws of Bridge, when there is an incomplete >> designation, common-sense requires you to look to find out what card >is >> played. >No, it does not. Common sense dictates that declarer should designate >one and only one card, by naming it without ambiguity or by picking it >up. No defender should be expected to have to deal with a situation in >which declarer names one card and points at another, then claims that >"of course" the card he was pointing at, rather than the card he has >named, is the card he has played. Whether they should or not, bridge is not played your way, as you know. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you considered the questions raised and the laws of bridge that apply. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 09:43:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9INfPB03821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9INf8H03805 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:41:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15uMhM-000Ojl-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:35:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:34:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead -- DWS' Americanization References: <200110171926.MAA07938@mailhub.irvine.com> <005801c1577a$fc0076c0$be87b2d1@c1r5i8> In-Reply-To: <005801c1577a$fc0076c0$be87b2d1@c1r5i8> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Wood writes >Tsk, tsk, Adam. > >In defense of our esteemed DWS, surely he was just following >his self-avowed "common-scents" approach; that is, following >his nose for Americanized English as bastardized by those of us >in the colonies. That he tweaked us with the infrequent (but >acceptable) variant "practise" certainly falls within the unwritten >laws of informal humorous writing. That you ragged on him, as >though he were guilty of actual "malpractise" (a variant *not* in >informed, literate use in the colonies), is out of character for you >and has been logged against your usually stellar record of >accuracy in BLML writing. :)) > >For your penance, please write "mea culpa" one hundred times. >:) > >Where you do have him caught red-handed, incontrovertibly, >is that he *has* shammed your surname [as "Benescham" (sic)] >in his "Proposed Changes in Claims Laws" screen at >http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm, >despite my lobbying him privately on your behalf. Dear me, more inaccuracy. I have amended the "Proposed Changes in Claims Laws" screen. Admittedly, there do seem to be other places ... -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 10:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J0YKc11589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:34:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9J0YDH11585 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:34:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.30.253] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15uNWF-0001uD-00; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:28:11 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c15834$ee10b2e0$e97b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Grant Sterling" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:28:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > I think that if I point at the card to be played, then > I have designated that that card be played. I don't. If heretofore you have been calling cards from dummy in what I would describe as "normal" fashion, then it is not reasonable to expect me as a defender to have suddenly to watch you call for the rest of them using sempahore. Even if that were reasonable, it is ridiculous to expect me to allow for the fact that at trick eight or nine, your method of designating a card to be led from dummy has suddenly shifted to semi-semaphore. > > >But > >once a card is named, then it is played. If a declarer utters the > > I agree. Also, once a card has been otherwise designated, > it is played. There is a technical problem here, since it is not clear whether the word "or" in L45C4a is an inclusive or an exclusive "or". Perhaps we should consider an extreme case: declarer leans over the table and picks out the ace of clubs, while uttering the words "ace of spades". Assuming that both black aces are in dummy, which card has he played? You may say "neither" - you may, if I have followed your arguments correctly until now, say "both". Whichever you say, and whichever card is determined by some luckless TD to have been played, could you seriously assert that the action of the next player in following suit to the ace of clubs should be subject to penalty? > Let us return to a simpler case. Declarer says > "play that", and clearly points to the two of diamonds, > or perhaps says nothing at all but points to the two of > diamonds in a manner which indicates that he's trying > to get it played. Your position apparently must be > that he has designated no card at all. Why must it be? I am sure that by now you understand that I have no patience at all with declarers who cannot be bothered to utter the words "two of diamonds" when the card they want played from dummy is the two of diamonds. But if I say that the Laws ought to be constructed in such a fashion that negligent declarers in this respect ought to be punished by having to discard from dummy the ace of hearts, I am accused of wanting to live in a perfect world where the game is played according to the rules. I am told, by the leading contributors to this list, that it is far too late for that. I say only that it is not, since I expect the game of bridge to be around in the year 3000, and my sincerest hope is that BLML will not be. Things being as they are, if a declarer who says "play that" does his best to indicate that "that" is the two of diamonds, the current Laws leave me in no doubt that the two of diamonds is the card that should be played. My position is that a declarer may "otherwise designate" than by naming it a card that should be played from dummy. But if there is any ambiguity at all in declarer's designation, then the current Laws provide a way in which that ambiguity shall be resolved, and if that resolution is not to declarer's liking, it is up to him to convince the powers that be that his different intention was incontrovertible. (This appalling copout should be expunged from the Laws forthwith, though I am well aware that this will not happen.) > Whether he has _also_ verbally designated > the ace of clubs remains to be seen. Not really. He has verbally designated the ace of clubs - so say I, and so says the Law. Just about every card that declarer designates to be played from dummy is done by means of a verbal designation - it seems to me reasonable that the defenders should rely on this, and not have to wait for some physical corroboration. > It is not the proper way of calling for the card to > be played, I agree. But, then, virtually all ways of > 'otherwise designating' the card to play would be improper, > and that doesn't mean the designation didn't take place. Au contraire - if a proper designation occured at the same time as an improper one, it seems to me that the former should have priority. > An improper designation is still a designation. [Perhaps > ex-Pres. Clinton could argue that he really didn't have > sex with Monica Lewinsky, on the grounds that since he > didn't engage in sex in the proper manner, he didn't > engage in sex at all.] Quite so, in the same way as you might argue that a declarer who has requested an ace from dummy has not requested a card at all, since two aces remain in dummy. Unfortunately... > >for > >the moment the parenthesis in L46B) it is necessary to make some > >determination about which card has for the moment been played. L46C > >is > >quite clear on the point: declarer is deemed to have continued the suit > >in which dummy won the preceding trick (for his action in pointing to > >the spade suit does not constitute a completion of his designation > >except in his own mind and, perhaps, of dummy's). > > This is not what the word "unless" means. The word "unless" does not appear in the foregoing. I know what it means. I have already said that the appalling copout may be invoked by declarer if it turns out that he really didn't mean the ace of clubs, despite asking for it. > If I leave my son instructions to "wash the car > unless it rains", I have certainly not instructed him > to wash the car in the rain and then "take back" the > washing. If it rains, I don't want him to wash the > car at all. This is firmly in what I might class as the DWS "false analogy" category. > The parenthetical comment says that the > following restrictions apply _unless_ declarer's > intention was incontrovertible. That does not mean > that we ignore declarer's intention, apply the > restrictions, and then go back and change the > card played because of his intention. It means > that if his intentions were incontrovertible _the > rest of the law is inapplicable_. Not quite, for the status of the card played by East is what is (or appears to me) in question. East cannot be expected to divine declarer's intention; East can be expected to do no more than play a card consistent with declarer's having called for the ace of clubs. The position is this: declarer has said "ace", which as far as East (and the Law) is concerned means "ace of clubs". East has played a card on that basis. Now, that card is not a revoke (nor should it turn into a penalty card) if it turns out that the ace of clubs was not declarer's intention. If declarer convinces everyone that the ace of spades was his actually intended card, then East may withdraw his play without penalty. It may not have been clear from what I wrote that *if* declarer convinces everyone that his intention to play the spade rather than the club ace was incontroverible, he should be allowed to (in effect) change his play to the spade ace. If that was not clear, I apologise. > If someone claims without stating a finesse, the > law says that he may not be deemed to have taken the > finesse _unless_ an opponent has shown out. [Etc.] > This does not mean that if an opponent _has_ already > shown out, that we adjudicate the board as if the > finesse was not taken, and then go back and change > our adjudication on the basis of the finesse being > taken due to the 'unless' clause! I am afraid that I don't follow this at all. In the case where a man claims on a proven finesse, nothing has happened between the claim and the adjudication that could change anyone's mind, or give "pause for thought". But in the case where a man calls for a card from dummy, and RHO plays on the basis that the card called is the card played, a great deal may have happened to change the status quo. I fear that Grant's comment above is another that I would place firmly in the "false analogy" category. > Then the law is unreasonable, since the law does > require that. [If you're not going to revoke occasionally.] Which Law is it that requires me to break my concentration on what is happening in order to allow for declarer's shifting pattern in requiring cards from dummy? > I quite agree. In this case, defender could have > followed suit with a trump without waiting for dummy to > play it, since it has been designated. Or, alternatively, > he could play a trump since declarer's intention was > incontrovertible. [Of course he doesn't know that, because > he wasn't watching declarer. But since he knows he wasn't > watching declarer, and sees that dummy has played the ace > of trumps, it is unwise of him to assume that a) the > designation really was complete, and b) declarer's intention > was controvertible, and c) dummy has pulled the wrong > card, and then follow to the club suit.] Or he could > ask dummy why he played the trump ace, in case he has > misheard declarer or missed some relevant information > like a clear gesture. Or, he could revoke. :) Oh, well. No wonder they say that defence is the most difficult part of the game. If I have not only to draw inferences from the bidding, count declarer's tricks, watch my partner's discards, anticipate endplays and squeezes, but also guess what declarer has in mind when he makes some incomplete designation and (if Herman is directing, at any rate) take care to guard against ridiculous claims, I might as well just sacrifice over everything. > I agree that the naming is sufficient for the > playing. Just so that you know that we agree on one > thing. :) But it's the only thing. There isn't anything else. Hi, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say, ho. > >Yes, it was. Otherwise, what does the Law mean? > > The Law means "If declarer's intention is not > incontrovertible, apply L46b1-5. If declarer's intention > is incontrovertible, play the card he incontrovertibly > intended to play and do not apply L46b1-5." That, I > think, is how I always read the word "unless". Indeed. That is how the case might be adjudicated. But the question that arose had to do with the status of the card played by the defender on dummy's left (or so I understood the matter, although as I have said, I have not really been following the whole business). I repeat: when East played a card on the basis that declarer had called for the ace of clubs, that was a legal (and reasonable) thing for East to do. If it turned out that declarer's incontrovertible intention was to call for the ace of spades, then I would have no quarrel with any adjudication on that basis. But what I will not countenance is the notion that East, in playing on the assumption that the ace of clubs had been requested from dummy, was in any way at fault, or should be subject to any penalty. > >There are declarers who, when leading from dummy, will call simply for > >"jack" or some such. There is only one jack in dummy, so that is the > >card played. But the effect of such behaviour is simply to disconcert > >the opponents (and perhaps dummy, but he does not matter), because they > >have to work out which card has in fact been played, and their > >concentration may be broken thereby. I know that Herman thinks I have > >been over-reacting to what is apparently a small lacuna in the Laws, but > >I tell you this: such incomplete designations are a particularly > >irritating form of gamesmanship, and I in company with many others would > >like to see them removed from the game, in the interests of enhanced > >justice and enjoyment for all. > > Most people I know don't do this from > gamesmanship or anything like that at all. They do it > because they think it is perfectly obvious to everyone > on the face of the earth that if there's only one J in > dummy that that's the card they're playing. I agree that > if they are doing it to disconcert the opponents, we > can and should rule against them under L74a2, L74c7, > etc. They do it because they know the Laws and they want to show off. My hatred of such people may be a purely personal idiosyncrasy. But (pace DWS and HdW), I would still campaign for a Law 45 that said: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming its suit and its rank. If declarer fails in any respect to do this at dummy's turn to play, then either defender may require the play of any card from dummy that may legally be played to the current trick". Just as I would campaign for a Law 25 that said, in its entirety: "A call once made may not be changed." Now, be honest. Would it really slow the game down all that much if instead of saying "small", you had to say "three of hearts"? We'd all have to change the habits of a lifetime, it is true. And we all would not have nearly so many interesting questions to discuss on BLML. What price? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 11:31:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J1Ttj11622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:29:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [210.86.15.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9J1TnH11618 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:29:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.69.132] by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20011019012416.EMOG2333.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:24:16 +1300 From: Wayne Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:24:16 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20011019012416.EMOG2333.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: Eric Landau > Date: 2001/10/19 Fri AM 12:54:54 GMT+12:00 > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > >I do not see why I should have to remedy declarer's deficient behaviour, > >nor why I should have to attempt to follow the extraneous communication > >between declarer and dummy in order to determine which ace has actually > >been played. > > It's not at all clear that declarer's behavior has been deficient. He > has played the card by "otherwise designat[ing]" it, as provided by > L45C4a. True, his designation was incomplete, but that is covered by > L46; his designation of the SA was no more "deficient" than had he > intended the CA, said "ace", and not pointed at anything. > > If you are one of those players who chooses not to know the laws and to > let the TD sort out any problem, you will not be in a position to > "know" which ace was played until the TD tells you. Why would you > know, or assume, that "ace" meant the CA if you weren't in essence > attempting to make your own (or anticipate the TD's) L46 ruling? > I am not sure that this is an accurate reading of L45. L45B says that a card is played from dummy by naming it and allows for declarer to pick up the card if necessary. This later allowance does not seem to relinquish declarer's responsibility to name the card. L45C covers a number of happening that may require a particular card to be played without saying that those happenings are proper procedure. With respect to dummy's card L46A further states that the proper procedure is to state both rank and suit. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand 0064 6 355 1259 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 12:53:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J2pHZ11681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:51:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9J2pBH11677 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:51:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.74.46] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15uPfH-0000LF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:45:40 +0100 Message-ID: <007801c15848$228c6380$e97b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:44:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >What is the number of that Law, please? > > Your sense of humour is deteriorating. Could not posibly get any worse. But anno Domini, you know... > >A TD called to a table where declarer has asked for "Ace" from dummy > >should read Law 46B3 and determine that the ace requested is the ace of > >the suit in which dummy won the last trick. > > If that is your view of this case then I shall leave it to you to > explain to Grattan, Ton and Kojak why they are wrong to follow the Law > as written and that their offerings to this thread are all wrong. I am bewildered. Their offerings did not strike me as wrong in the least. I am aware that because I came very late to the whole thing, I was in danger of addressing only one aspect: "what is a played card?". But I hoped to have made it clear that whereas I considered the ace of clubs in the case given a "played card", I did not consider it an irrevocably played card; it might be withdrawn under the Laws relating to a change of designation. Clearly I am in error, and should reread: Ton Kooijman (14th October) Declarer won a trick in dummy with a club and says 'ace' of which there are still two in dummy one being the club ace. RHO plays a club to this spoken 'ace'. But it appears that declarer wanted to play the other (spade) ace and he tells that he did point to the other ace and that dummy did touch and moved the spade ace. Now the TD has to decide what to do. My view is that it is possible that declarer wanted to play the spade ace. We need to be at the table to decide about that. I have to say that the description in which he asked for an ace and at the same moment pointed to the spade ace sounds typical to me. It is more likely that seeing the club followed by RHO declarer understood the confusion and then pointed to the spade ace as the one to be played. But it is not that important. And you need to find those facts at the table (but I have some experience and instinct). If the TD decides that declarer wanted to play the spade ace from the beginning, he still should allow RHO to change his played card without penalty, using 45C4b. Then the TD interprets saying 'ace' (which in itself means club ace) and therewith pointing to the spade ace as the change of an inadvertent designation of a card. David Burn 18th October There is some evidence, from declarer's actions (and perhaps from the hand itself) that his intention was not to play the ace of clubs but the ace of spades. If he can convince a TD that his different intention was incontrovertible, and that no pause for thought supervened once it became clear that the ace of clubs was being treated as the card played, then he is permitted (per L45C4b) to change his play from dummy, and a defender who has already played a club may retract it without penalty (per L47D). So far, we seem to be in complete agreement. Continuons (this is French for "let us continue", lest I should be accused of using words which my readers will not understand): Bill Schoder 15th October I strongly recommend David Burn's postings of 15 October to anyone who would like to not only know what the present Law says, but also contains a recommmendation for change in future Laws. >From this, it does not sound as though either Kojak or I would like to tell each other where we get off. But then, we generally don't. With Grattan, there are occasionally what I would describe as civilised disagreements: Grattan Endicott 16th October +=+ No, I do not. I consider that so worded the statement is a false one, typical of inferior translations of instructions how to use foreign products. This one should say "you change gear by depressing the clutch and then moving the gear lever". ~ G ~ +=+ Now, there is a man with an ear for a false analogy. However: Grattan Enidcott 16th October +=+ Greetings. This is not what declarer has done. He has designated rank by saying 'ace' and he has designated suit by pointing to the spade suit. He has designated only one card and the call of the card is not incomplete so that Law 26 is not involved. What is more I can testify that such has been the ruling since the 1950's at least. With this, I do not agree, as can be seen from: David Burn 18th October L46C is quite clear on the point: declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick (for his action in pointing to the spade suit does not constitute a completion of his designation except in his own mind and, perhaps, of dummy's). Now, this is at present an irreconcilable difference, but such is life - I have no doubt that Grattan and I will at some future stage continue to debate it, for it is an important point. But I would no more dream of telling him that he was "all wrong" than he would dream of telling me that I was. It may be that the mechanics of play in the 1950s are sufficiently different from those in the 2000s that the position on which Grattan bases his judgement is no longer tenable; it may also be that there is no good reason to allow a prinicple that has formed part of the jurisprudence for so long to be arbitrarily discontinued. "It may be we were meant to mark, with our riot and our rest, God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best." [G K Chesterton] But I do not think that the extent of my "disagreement" with the leading authorities in the game at the moment is nearly as bad as you make out. > >If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will > >assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. > You may, but the average player will not. You appear to be someone > who is prepared to work on part of a Law but not the full Law, and I am > afraid that that is the least common-sense position of all. You should > either learn the laws, or not. Oh, David. I am someone who knows the Laws nearly as well as you do. I am also someone who plays bridge nearly as well as you might if you played it quite a bit better. I know, from the point of view of a player and not of a lawgiver, how the Laws work at every level from the very top downwards. I am not, which may perhaps be insufferable arrogance on my part, prepared to be told by you what I should and should not learn. But I do not forget what it was like to be an "average player", and what it was like was this. On just about every occasion in which the Laws were involved, they seemed totally incomprehensible. > Me, I am a simple soul, I follow the laws. Does that mean I wave my > arms, or not? I am afraid you have lost me. I will bear the loss as best I may. > Whether they should or not, bridge is not played your way, as you > know. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you considered the questions > raised and the laws of bridge that apply. I do not consider that this would actually help at all, any more than I consider that the cause of common humanity would be advanced by contemplating the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. I have already given a number of reasoned arguments about the questions raised, and the Laws of bridge that apply - the extent to which you have ignored or misread these arguments may perhaps be gauged by the extent to which you have misunderstood the level of "disagreement" that exists between Grattan, Ton, Kojak and myself. As to what the Laws mean, those that have the Laws in their keeping have said what they have to say. As to the effect of that judgement on the way the game is played in practice, those who play it have had what they have to say also. That there still exists a dichotomy is, or should be, a source of shame to all concerned - except, of course, me, for if bridge were played my way... :) David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 14:50:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J4lme24777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:47:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9J4lhH24773 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:47:43 +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 f9J4gEw18500 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a201c15858$49095800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:41:08 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" > Hi all > This is my first post on this forum. Welcome! You will be asked about cats and dogs. > It is a somewhat fearful posting as > there are some very experienced names on this list who may find > some of my queries ... well .... silly. We are all silly at times, so don't be too fearful. Well, there is one exception (a dozen will think that shoe fits). > But hey I'm here to learn & gain some > knowledge so I'll expect a few bumps, just not too many please :)) > > I'll give you the scenario, and let you loose > > Teams, vul vs not, dealer RHO > > S x Rho U Lho pd > H AJ9 P 1C 2S(1) P > D KQ9x 3S DBL P 4H > C AKT9x P P 4S P > P X All pass > > (1) weak Jump Overcall, 6 spades <11pts (normally 6-10). > > 4S makes - can't be stopped. > > > LHO's hand RHO's hand > > S AT98xxx S Kxx > H Qx H Kxxx > D AJx D xx > C x C J8xx > > > (1) is this call legal ?? It does not match the alerted bid. Legal, yes. Moreover, I'd say it's a close enough match to the explanation. As Eric has often maintained, a minor deviation from a disclosed range, based on style or judgment (e.g., that queen is not worth two points), cannot be considered a violation of the range. > > (2) Assuming it is legal , (they can claim the bidder deviated > from the system, and his pd is as much in the dark as we are) > - is this now a precedence case ?? Do subsequent alerts for > this bid now have to say ... <12 pts, 6+ spades ?? If 11 pts is rare, as I suspect, then it would be misleading to say <12 pts. I think most people understand that a player may cheat a point either way occasionally. > > (3) If not - where is the line drawn ?? How can we stop such, > dare I say, "hidden" partnership agreements ?? (I have been > informed from various sources that a case such as the one above, > does not constitute a precedence case - the reasoning is that > so long as the bidders partner bids as if it > were a weak 2 6-10pts 6 spades, the actual hand shape and points > can be almost whatever they want.) That is hard, really impossible, for a partner to do if the range is frequently violated. If it happens often, that probably should be disclosed: "Weak, six to ten points, six spades, but partner will sometimes deviate slightly from that range. I play him for six to ten, however." > > The reason I posted this case - to get a definitive answer from > people who know. I doubt you will get a definitive answer. Some of us want to produce a histogram of all points partner has ever held for a bid, and hold that any deviation from an announced range must be mentally recorded and the records recited to the opponents whenever the bid is made. Here is what L75B says: "A player may violate an announced partnership agreement, so long as his partner is unaware of the violation (but habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements, which must be disclosed." As I said above, I do not consider an infrequent one-point deviation based on judgment to constitute a violation of the partnership agreement. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 15:29:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J5Pw827742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:25:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9J5PqH27731 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:25:52 +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 f9J5KNw10342 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d901c1585d$99b281a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:16:17 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >L46A says a player *should* use proper form by clearly stating > >both suit and rank, but L45B says a card is played when it is named. > > Sigh. > L45b says that a card is played if it is named _or > otherwise designated_. Sigh. Read it again. "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which..." Like TDs, we should be looking at a law when we quote it. The only correct way to play a card is by naming it, but a partial naming (rank or suit only) is tolerated, with certain restrictions (L46B). Designating a card by other means is improper procedure, but a player who does so is required to play it [L47C4(a)]. Proper procedure dominates improper procedure when both are employed simultaneously. Now I am really out of this thread, as I must play in the regional at Hollywood Park over the long weekend. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 17:10:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J77UU06359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:07:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9J77PH06355 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:07:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.22.84] (helo=FOSTERS) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15uTfG-0004nh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:01:54 +0100 From: pam@hadpaddock.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:05:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9J77RH06356 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:28:58 +0100, DWS wrote: David Burn wrote: >>If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will >>assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. > > You may, but the average player will not. The average player almost certainly will assume this refers to the last played suit having absolutely no knowledge of law 46B3 or even "the first paragraph of L46B, followed by the first sentence of L46B3, follwed by the entirety of L46B3a." In the beginning it was said: >The following sequence of events occured: > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; I would say that on that sequence of events that 90% of average players would follow with a club. I wonder how the club actually won on table was designated? Declarer plays a club and says "Jack". He then says "Ace". Declarer plays a club and says "Jack of clubs". He then says "Ace". In either of the two above situations I would be pretty pissed off if I, as following defender, played a club (which I would) and declarer was then allowed to play a different Ace. I do not watch declarer when dummy plays a card, I listen and look at my cards. Please excuse this interjection from an "average player" who, after reading BLML again after a long break is even more sure that the laws have been written for experts and not the average player. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 17:55:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J7qno06655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:52:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost2.onet.pl (ghost2.onet.pl [213.180.128.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9J7qhH06651 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:52:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:5892 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost2.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:46:56 +0200 Message-ID: <002201c15871$637ba1c0$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011012105518.00a09ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00b001c153a2$693e9140$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <000e01c15514$1ada3720$59427bd5@dodona> <001a01c155e1$d0bf8720$692f7ad5@pbncomputer> <3BCBF22B.EC1C40D1@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.1.20011016120347.00a14c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011017112713.00a148e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:40:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: "Konrad Ciborowski" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > Obviously, I just disagree. > If you'll forgive the disgression: > In Plato's _Statesman_ and _Republic_, he holds that > the rulers should have wide latitude in making laws, because > that allows for the greatest justice, since the laws can be > tailored to individual situations. > In his _Laws_ he holds that the laws should be very > rigid and not subject to much latitude, since this will > curb abuses. > The difference is because in the first two books > he is assuming that the rulers are wise and discerning, > and so will generally make good judgements. In the third, > he is assuming that we have no such expert rulers, and > so the basically ordinary idiots who stumble into > authority would screw things up if given much leeway. > I am an 'early' Platonist about TDs--I think > most of them can give pretty decent judgement rulings > most of the time, so I want to give them the flexibility > to achieve just results. Many arguments on this list > are from 'late' Platonists, who think TDs and ACs are > too inconsistent to make good rulings, or who think > that players don't like inconsistent rulings even if > they were good. I understand this position, I just > don't agree with it. [Other arguments are made by > non-Platonists who hold that justice is defined by > the laws no matter what they say.] Believe it or not - this is exactly what sprang to my mind recently! Yes, this is the quintesence of our disagreemnt. > > PS: I don't mean to imply that you're trying to take > advantage of the elderly or handicapped! I'm sorry > if it sounded that way. My point is that stricter > standards for proper designation, proper claim statements, > "card touched, card played", etc., do not just penalize > those who are culpably lazy or inattentive, but those who > make similar mistakes for other reasons. If I played > chess against such opponents, I'd probably let them take > back their moves, too. > > Respectfully, > Grant Wow, perhaps we are coming to some consensus. I am very much in favor of the idea of "different law books for different levels". I think that the "club level" law book should allow players to take back their plays and bids, shouldn't be too strict about claims, and contain rules like "if a player commits an infraction his opponent should receive a compensation" without specifying what the compensation should be; this should be decided by a unanimous decision of all four players and only if it can't be reached the TD should intervene. OTOH, the rule book for the national tournaments and high-level competition should be very strict. You go to the local club to spend a pleasant evening so indeed I can understand the decision not to enforce some laws that might spoil someone's pleasure. But you don't regularly travel 600 kilometers to play in a national tournament and you don't bid 8000 deals or so a year with your regular partner during the practice sessions to "spend pleasantly an evening". When I go to a local club with my girlfriend I play for pleasure against the pleasure players; when I play in a national tournament I don't like the law that lets the pro and semi-pro players take back their bids and plays, make ambiguous claim statements or fail to be explicit about what cards they want played from dummy and get away with it. There is a world of difference between bridge played in a club in Helsinki, Paris or Krakow and serious competition at the national or international level. So instead of pretending that this is the same game that is played in both cases let's acknowledge that it isn't and change the laws accordingly. Yes, definitely I think that "different law books for different levels" idea is a good one. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.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 Oct 19 17:57:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9J7sbn06661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:54:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9J7sVH06657 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-164-129.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.164.129]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9J7mwB22623 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:48:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCECFAA.AA304B35@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:48:42 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim and finesse References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011019125123.00a27080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > A general law could be : if line #2 is clearly best, and if there are some > vaguely resembling cases where line #1 is needed, using line #1 in lieu of > line #2 is inferior, not irrational, and may be imposed on declarer. > > Regards, > > Alain. > All this is eminently true. And totally irrelevant to the case at hand. I know I am in a minority here (and we haven't even heard from DB in this thread !) but my analysis of this case is the following : - this player did not think before claiming - we don't force irrational actions on plays - not thinking before playing is an irrational action (mind you, I don't say that not thinking before claiming is irrational - that is eminently rational) - so we allow this player to think before playing, and we judge how this action would go - I deem that, after thinking (a small amount of time), it is irrational not to conclude that one needs a club trick to fulfil the contract - so I allow him to go for a club trick - in one and only one manner, and luckily for him, there is one "obvious" line (even when other lines are not irrational) that declarer himself has stated without external influence (**) - so I allow the one line, as a natural consequence of the claim statement that was not uttered - that line succeeds, so the contract is made. This may not be legalistic, but it "feels" right. So burn me. (**) I deem that the objection, if raised before the player himself discovered his error, was not of a sort that revealed the position of the king of clubs. -- 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 Oct 19 20:34:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JAXSv06745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:33:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JAXLH06741 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:33:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA18796; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:24:35 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA06525; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:27:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020121834.00aa8860@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:27:41 +0200 To: "Karel De Raeymaeker" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:21 18/10/2001 +0100, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: AG : welcome among the brain-rackers. This is the point of no return. >Teams, vul vs not, dealer RHO > >S x Rho U Lho pd >H AJ9 P 1C 2S(1) P >D KQ9x 3S DBL P 4H >C AKT9x P P 4S P > P X All pass > >(1) weak Jump Overcall, 6 spades <11pts (normally 6-10). > >4S makes - can't be stopped. > > >LHO's hand RHO's hand > >S AT98xxx S Kxx >H Qx H Kxxx >D AJx D xx >C x C J8xx > > >(1) is this call legal ?? It does not match the alerted bid. AG : yes. You may deviate from system as long as partner doesn't know - Law 75B. Here, there is nothing to suggest that partner did know. >(2) Assuming it is legal , (they can claim the bidder deviated from the >system, and his pd is as much in the dark as we are) - is this now a >precedence case ?? Do subsequent alerts for this bid now have to say ... ><12 pts, 6+ spades ?? AG : once is an accident, twice is an habit. I usually change my Convention Card and explanations where the same deviation has occurred twice. I feel the fisrt deviation doesn't create the precedent, but the second makes partner wary of the possibility and it will become difficult for him not to take my habits into account. >(3) If not - where is the line drawn ?? How can we stop such, dare I say, >"hidden" partnership agreements ?? (I have been informed from various >sources that a case such as the one above, does not constitute a precedence >case - the reasoning is that so long as the bidders partner bids as if it >were a weak 2 6-10pts 6 spades, the actual hand shape and points can be >almost what ever they want.) AG : repeated violations may create new agreements - still L75B. The laxist view expressed above is wrong. If 2S may be made on a wide count range, this has to be disclosed. Even if there was something suspect in their auction, you won't get any redress, since giving East the HQ and west a small H places the 2S bid within range and makes 4S as icy as before. Best regards. Alain. >The reason I posted this case - to get a definitive answer from people who >know. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 20:39:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JAdKh06757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:39:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JAdEH06753 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:39:14 +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 MAA19857; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:30:28 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA11092; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:33:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020122957.00aa92b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:33:35 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations In-Reply-To: <00a201c15858$49095800$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:41 18/10/2001 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >As I said above, I do not consider an infrequent one-point deviation >based on judgment to constitute a violation of the partnership >agreement. AG : most players overlook the possibility to tell it all on the CC or in written explanations by the use of brackets, here 6-10(11) HCP. L75 B implicit agreements will often be summarizable (?) that way. For example, a Spanish K-S 1H opener : (4)5 cards. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 22:46:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JCk5g23369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:46:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JCjwH23358 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:45:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9JCeQ407914 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011019082159.00b09c50@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:40:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 40D In-Reply-To: References: <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> <004801c15760$f9b8cf80$de240b93@isi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:36 AM 10/18/01, David wrote: >Richard Willey writes > >Here is an odd little question: > > > >What can't be regulated using L40D. > > > >We have already seen examples where Law 40D has been used to effectly > >ban natural opening bids. For example, the ACBL forbids players to > >use any conventional bids following a 1N opening that could be made > >with less than 10 HCP. For all intents and purposes, this is > >equivalent to banning this opening bid. > > > >Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of > >conventions unless players chose to play 5 card majors? From what I > >can tell, the answer to this question is yes. The WBF clearly seems > >to believe that Law 40D can be used to extend the regulatory power of > >a sponsoring authority to ban behaviours that it does not like. > > So long as they execute the ban in a legal way, no doubt they could. > > >Could a sponsoring organization use Law 40D to ban the use of > >conventions by right handed players? > > Yes. > > Of course, the Laws of the country involved may not permit such a >rule. > > >What is the difference between the two cases? > > Not a lot. The WBF no doubt assumes that regulating authorities are >to be trusted to regulate events. Why not? > > If you get a regulating authority that is not working for the benefit >of its members and wishes to act with total irrationality then the >presence or absence of L40D is not going to make a tinker's cuss of >difference. So far at least, even the most irrational NCBO (I won't mention its name) has remained reluctant to come straight out with, "This regulation is against the international Laws of Bridge, but you'd better obey it anyhow if you know what's good for you." They do feel compelled to come up with a rationale for their irrationalities, such as the incredible doctrinal perversion that interprets L40D in such a way that, yes, it could, given that their interpretation has been, albeit perhaps under some pressure, accepted by the WBF, be used to bar the use of any conventions by right-handed players. So L40D at least forces them to expose the extent of their irrationality to the bridge-playing public, which, I suppose, might give some aid and comfort to those who would like to seem them behave a bit more rationally. In addition, it keeps alive the vague possibility that, if they go to far, some future WBF or WBFLC might actually take a principled stand and attempt to bring them back into line with the kind of reasonable interpretation of L40D that reflects its original intention and is generally accepted elsewhere. I write from fear that if enough people accept a status quo in which L40D is effectively meaningless, it might be eventually allowed to fall out of TFLB, and our last chances of restoring rationality to the particular NCBO in question will be significantly reduced. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 19 23:20:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDKE223562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:14 +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-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 f9JDK4H23550 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDEWT23739 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:14:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFE97F.1B20C3BA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:51:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c15802$5e414800$618b7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > There are declarers who, when leading from dummy, will call simply for > "jack" or some such. There is only one jack in dummy, so that is the > card played. But the effect of such behaviour is simply to disconcert > the opponents (and perhaps dummy, but he does not matter), because they > have to work out which card has in fact been played, and their > concentration may be broken thereby. I know that Herman thinks I have > been over-reacting to what is apparently a small lacuna in the Laws, but > I tell you this: such incomplete designations are a particularly > irritating form of gamesmanship, and I in company with many others would > like to see them removed from the game, in the interests of enhanced > justice and enjoyment for all. > David, I have great respect for your views, proof of which is that I read them all. And sometimes you do come up with a jem. Such as this one. Please accept that when I said you were using elephants to stop pinholes I was not referring to this but to some obscure thing. If you want to campaign for the removal of the "otherwise designate" from the Laws, I will support such action. Saying "club" when meaning a low club is not a bad thing, but saying "jack" can also infuriate me. -- 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 Oct 19 23:20:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDKAL23558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JDK1H23547 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDERT23683 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:14:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFE83A.39EBC332@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:45:46 +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] Played Card References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Pam, welcome back, pam@hadpaddock.com wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:28:58 +0100, DWS wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > >>If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will > >>assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. > > > > You may, but the average player will not. > > The average player almost certainly will assume this refers to the > last played suit having absolutely no knowledge of law 46B3 or even > "the first paragraph of L46B, followed by the first sentence of L46B3, > follwed by the entirety of L46B3a." > > In the beginning it was said: > >The following sequence of events occured: > > > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > > > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > > > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > > I would say that on that sequence of events that 90% of average > players would follow with a club. > > I wonder how the club actually won on table was designated? > Declarer plays a club and says "Jack". He then says "Ace". > Declarer plays a club and says "Jack of clubs". He then says "Ace". > > In either of the two above situations I would be pretty pissed off if > I, as following defender, played a club (which I would) and declarer > was then allowed to play a different Ace. I do not watch declarer when > dummy plays a card, I listen and look at my cards. > > Please excuse this interjection from an "average player" who, after > reading BLML again after a long break is even more sure that the laws > have been written for experts and not the average player. > Pam, David, you are both barking up the wrong tree. The question is not whether this declarer should be allowed to get away with this misnomer. While that may be an interesting question (and I do believe it is, because I don't like these actions either), it is only interesting as a matter of fact, at that table. It is up to the TD to decide whether or not declarer's intent was incontrovertible or not. The TD has decided that it was, and while we may debate the good sense of that, the rest of the argumentation is far more interesting. What we now have, is a designation by L46B3a (= clubs) and an application of the sentence above L46B (incontrovetible intent = spades). The Law is clear. Under the circumstances as determined by the TD, clubs and spades have been designated. The Spade Ace is the one that is played. The interesting point of the thread is what should happen to the club that has meanwhile been played. I believe we have settled that. So stop the nit-picking. Sorry for sounding Kojak-ish. -- 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 Oct 19 23:20:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDKHx23563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JDK7H23557 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDEaT23774 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:14:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFEAA0.E5415BDD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:56:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Nightmare Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my dream : LHO pnr RHO me 1He pass 4He (*) (**) (*) takes away his bidding cards (**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. An easy one : If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling ? -- 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 Oct 19 23:21:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDL0s23602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:21:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9JDKkH23583 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDFEB14249 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:15:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFE83A.39EBC332@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:45:46 +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] Played Card References: <200110171544.LAA18339@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004101c157ba$23308340$5a4e7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Pam, welcome back, pam@hadpaddock.com wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:28:58 +0100, DWS wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > >>If as a defender I hear declarer call for "Ace" from dummy, then I will > >>assume (per L46B3) that this refers to the ace of the last suit played. > > > > You may, but the average player will not. > > The average player almost certainly will assume this refers to the > last played suit having absolutely no knowledge of law 46B3 or even > "the first paragraph of L46B, followed by the first sentence of L46B3, > follwed by the entirety of L46B3a." > > In the beginning it was said: > >The following sequence of events occured: > > > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > > > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > > > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > > I would say that on that sequence of events that 90% of average > players would follow with a club. > > I wonder how the club actually won on table was designated? > Declarer plays a club and says "Jack". He then says "Ace". > Declarer plays a club and says "Jack of clubs". He then says "Ace". > > In either of the two above situations I would be pretty pissed off if > I, as following defender, played a club (which I would) and declarer > was then allowed to play a different Ace. I do not watch declarer when > dummy plays a card, I listen and look at my cards. > > Please excuse this interjection from an "average player" who, after > reading BLML again after a long break is even more sure that the laws > have been written for experts and not the average player. > Pam, David, you are both barking up the wrong tree. The question is not whether this declarer should be allowed to get away with this misnomer. While that may be an interesting question (and I do believe it is, because I don't like these actions either), it is only interesting as a matter of fact, at that table. It is up to the TD to decide whether or not declarer's intent was incontrovertible or not. The TD has decided that it was, and while we may debate the good sense of that, the rest of the argumentation is far more interesting. What we now have, is a designation by L46B3a (= clubs) and an application of the sentence above L46B (incontrovetible intent = spades). The Law is clear. Under the circumstances as determined by the TD, clubs and spades have been designated. The Spade Ace is the one that is played. The interestinX-Mozilla-Status: 0009is what should happen to the club that has meanwhile been played. I believe we have settled that. So stop the nit-picking. Sorry for sounding Kojak-ish. -- 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 Oct 19 23:21:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDL4p23603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:21:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9JDKmH23586 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDFHB14272 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:15:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFE97F.1B20C3BA@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:51:11 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c15802$5e414800$618b7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > There are declarers who, when leading from dummy, will call simply for > "jack" or some such. There is only one jack in dummy, so that is the > card played. But the effect of such behaviour is simply to disconcert > the opponents (and perhaps dummy, but he does not matter), because they > have to work out which card has in fact been played, and their > concentration may be broken thereby. I know that Herman thinks I have > been over-reacting to what is apparently a small lacuna in the Laws, but > I tell you this: such incomplete designations are a particularly > irritating form of gamesmanship, and I in company with many others would > like to see them removed from the game, in the interests of enhanced > justice and enjoyment for all. > David, I have great respect for your views, proof of which is that I read them all. And sometimes you do come up with a jem. Such as this one. Please accept that when I said you were using elephants to stop pinholes I was not referring to this but tX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 If you want to campaign for the removal of the "otherwise designate" from the Laws, I will support such action. Saying "club" when meaning a low club is not a bad thing, but saying "jack" can also infuriate me. -- 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 Oct 19 23:21:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDL6H23604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:21:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f9JDKpH23590 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDFKB14305 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:15:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFEAA0.E5415BDD@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:56:01 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Nightmare Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my dream : LHO pnr RHO me 1He pass 4He (*) (**) (*) takes away his bidding cards (**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. An easy one : If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling ? -- 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 Oct 19 23:21:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDL8Z23605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:21:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9JDKrH23596 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-160-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.160.10]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9JDFMB14317 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:15:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BCFEC85.AAE99940@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:04:05 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hallo Karel, wat een mooie Vlaamse naam, en dat in Ierland ? Well, I'll switch to English just for the benefit of our international readers ... Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > Hi all > > This is my first post on this forum. It is a somewhat fearful posting as > there are some very experienced names on this list who may find some of my > queries ... well .... silly. But hey I'm here to learn & gain some > knowledge so I'll expect a few bumps, just not too many please :)) > Welcome to the list, and no question is ever silly. Many of the answers will be ... > I'll give you the scenario, and let you loose > > Teams, vul vs not, dealer RHO > > S x Rho U Lho pd > H AJ9 P 1C 2S(1) P > D KQ9x 3S DBL P 4H > C AKT9x P P 4S P > P X All pass > > (1) weak Jump Overcall, 6 spades <11pts (normally 6-10). > > 4S makes - can't be stopped. > > LHO's hand RHO's hand > > S AT98xxx S Kxx > H Qx H Kxxx > D AJx D xx > C x C J8xx > > (1) is this call legal ?? It does not match the alerted bid. > The call is certainly legal, by what Law would you want to call it illegal ? > (2) Assuming it is legal , (they can claim the bidder deviated from the > system, and his pd is as much in the dark as we are) - is this now a > precedence case ?? Do subsequent alerts for this bid now have to say ... > <12 pts, 6+ spades ?? > Everything that ever happened is precedence. Whether partner remembers is another issue. > (3) If not - where is the line drawn ?? How can we stop such, dare I say, > "hidden" partnership agreements ?? (I have been informed from various > sources that a case such as the one above, does not constitute a precedence > case - the reasoning is that so long as the bidders partner bids as if it > were a weak 2 6-10pts 6 spades, the actual hand shape and points can be > almost what ever they want.) > > The reason I posted this case - to get a definitive answer from people who > know. > I for one am rather severe on gray systems. I would say that the explanation 6c, 6-10(11) is wrong. The correct explanation is 6c(7), 6-11(12). Now tell me how you have been damaged by that MI. I don't think you are. I rule (small)MI, no damage. -- 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 Oct 19 23:39:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JDdkk23636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:39:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JDddH23632 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:39:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9JDY5q20572; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:34:05 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9JDY5m07815; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:34:05 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:34:05 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare In-Reply-To: <3BCFEAA0.E5415BDD@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, 19 Oct 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. > > Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my > dream : > > LHO pnr RHO me > 1He pass 4He > (*) (**) > > (*) takes away his bidding cards > (**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. > > An easy one : > > If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling > ? (*) is out of turn, accepted by (**). That makes it RHO's turn to bid, however, if RHO decides to pass, 34 applies, cancelling the 3 passes and giving you a chance to bid. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 00:11:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JEASp23682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:10:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9JEAMH23678 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:10:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA24954; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:03:39 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA17282; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:04:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020155457.00ab2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:04:42 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare In-Reply-To: <3BCFEAA0.E5415BDD@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:56 19/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. > >Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my >dream : > >LHO pnr RHO me >1He pass 4He >(*) (**) > >(*) takes away his bidding cards >(**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. > >An easy one : > >If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling LHO passed OOR. pnr accepted the pass and passed. RHO's turn. If RHO bids, bidding continues. If RHO passes, use L34 : the bidding reverts to you. What's funny about that law is that it seems that you have to do something (you may not decide that bidding is over), and if you pass, the next two players may do something else than pass ("as if there had been no irregularity"), which is strange. If RHO doubles or redoubles, see L19 and 36. Mention L74A3 to LHO & pnr. Nothing to nightmare about. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 00:42:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JEfiS23711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:41:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JEfcH23707 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:41:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15uakh-0004hE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:36:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:11:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Opening lead References: <001001c1565c$1cf0af00$02001aac@jazztel.es> <200110161713.KAA20039@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > That's not fair! I have enough trouble defending when I can see 26 >cards: there should be a penalty for making me see 39 and totally >confusing me!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Just to show you how bad my defense is, and totally off-topic for BLML >[so shoot me!] this is what I did this evening: > > > Qxx >Dummy T9x > T9x > Txxx ATx > K8 Me > J87x > QJ8x > > LHO opens 1NT [12-14], partner whacks it and leads H2, fourth highest. >T, K, A, declarer returns a small one. Partner wins his J and plays >another. You discard a diamond asking for a club. Declarer plays a >spade to the nine and king. Partner cashes the DA, then plays CA, C9, >which goes to declarer's king. Declarer cashes the HQ, partner follows, >dummy discards a spade. And I should discard? > > Q >Dummy -- > T9 > Tx AT > -- Me > J8 > QJ So, did you discard a diamond as I did? I do hope not! Keep the suit to your right, and all that. If you discard a spade, declarer will play a spade. You win, cash a club, and then cash your last club in this position: -- Dummy -- Partner T9 7 T -- -- -- Me Ax J8 -- 9 Q -- Qx Declarer -- Declarer is squeezed. But, of course, I missed this. Grrrr. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 01:12:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JFBsf23737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:11:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost2.onet.pl (ghost2.onet.pl [213.180.128.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JFARH23729 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:10:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:54539 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost2.onet.pl with SMTP id ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:04:28 +0200 Message-ID: <018c01c158ae$83b31530$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020155457.00ab2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:58:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare > At 10:56 19/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > >I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. > > > >Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my > >dream : > > > >LHO pnr RHO me > >1He pass 4He > >(*) (**) > > > >(*) takes away his bidding cards > >(**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. > > > >An easy one : > > > >If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling > > LHO passed OOR. > pnr accepted the pass and passed. > RHO's turn. > If RHO bids, bidding continues. > If RHO passes, use L34 : the bidding reverts to you. What's funny about > that law is that it seems that you have to do something (you may not decide > that bidding is over), and if you pass, the next two players may do > something else than pass ("as if there had been no irregularity"), which is > strange. > If RHO doubles or redoubles, see L19 and 36. > Mention L74A3 to LHO & pnr. > > Nothing to nightmare about. Yes, this is was my first instinct (and it is still my only instinct). This looks very easy but I am sure Herman has something to surprise us. What is it going to be? Perhaps the gag is not the application on L34 but the discussion if taking cards away is equivalent to passing. Anyway, I'll follow this thread with interest. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.html ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 02:07:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JG7h924495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:07:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9JG7PH24491 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:07:33 +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 f9JG11w16473; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:01:06 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:59:14 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "Grant Sterling" , In-Reply-To: <001c01c15834$ee10b2e0$e97b7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now let's try this again. The law reads: L46B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention in incontrovertible): 5 sections follow, clarifying the 'restrictions' that apply given various circumstances. 3(a) says to continue suit if possible when only rank is designated. Please clarify. It seems to me that you [and others] are saying that we apply the 'restrictions' of L46B3(a), meaning that declarer is deemed to have played the Ace of Clubs, and [after much gnashing of teeth] we then admit that the parenthetical passage allows declarer to change his designation to the Ace of trumps. My assertion is that _this is not what the word unless means_. It doesn't mean that in L46, or in L70E[*], or in automobile manuals. "Shift into high gear unless you're driving up a high mountain" does not mean that if you are driving up a high mountain you are to shift into high gear _and then shift back_, it means you're not to shift into high gear at all. "Don't allow a finesse unless it's proven" doesn't mean to disallow the finesse and then change your answer and allow it if proven, it means to allow it _ab initio_. "Apply these restrictions unless declarer's intention is incontrovertible" doesn't mean to apply the restrictions and then allow declarer to change his designation if his intention was incontrovertible, it means to not apply the restrictions _at all_ if his intention was incontrovertible. The Ace of Clubs was never designated by declarer, because it could only have been designated if L46B3(a) was being applied, but L46B tells you explicitly not to apply L46B 1-5 under these circumstances. Please explain to me again how you can read the word "unless" to mean "go ahead and do this anyway and then take it back". [* I gave this example because it is not a fictional one from an imaginary auto manual, but a real one from a real bridge lawbook. :)] A Parable: Sir Ian Fleming meets Grattan Endicott: Crack agent 003 1/8 has been ordered to apprehend GCS, the evil henchman of supervillain DWS. Fortunately, codebreakers at MI6 have intercepted DWS's instructions to GCS on Monday, and on Friday they radio 003 1/8 and tell him that they have cracked the code: "GCS: Obey order #46 (unless the BBC announces that the PM's visit to Shrewsbury has has been cancelled): #46: Travel to Shrewsbury on Friday to try to kill the PM." 003 1/8 has been working hard tracking down GCS during the week and has been unable to listen to the BBC or to pay attention to the PM's plans, but he drives to Shrewsbury. Although he is surprised to see no indication in the town that a major political figure is about to visit, he does not ask the dummies in town whether the plans have changed, nor does he call the BBC to see if a cancellation has been announced. He is angered when neither GCS nor the PM appears. He then appeals to the International Federation of Secret Agents, demanding that GCS hand himself over, on the grounds that IFSA law requires henchmen to follow the instructions of supervillains without deviation. "GCS was ordered to go to Shrewsbury, but he did not do so. I realize that he was allowed to invoke the parenthetical qualification to change his destination after he first went to Shrewsbury, but he is not allowed by these orders to avoid Shrewsbury altogether since he was specifically ordered to go there by order #46." As members of the IFSA Appeals Board, how do you rule? It develops that the BBC did incontrovertibly announce that the PM's visit was cancelled. [big snips follow] At 01:28 AM 10/19/01 +0100, David Burn wrote: >Grant wrote: >There is a technical problem here, since it is not clear whether the >word "or" in L45C4a is an inclusive or an exclusive "or". Perhaps we >should consider an extreme case: declarer leans over the table and picks >out the ace of clubs, while uttering the words "ace of spades". Assuming >that both black aces are in dummy, which card has he played? > >You may say "neither" - you may, if I have followed your arguments >correctly until now, say "both". Whichever you say, and whichever Correct. I will say "both". >card >is determined by some luckless TD to have been played, could you >seriously assert that the action of the next player in following suit to >the ace of clubs should be subject to penalty? No, indeed. [Although I don't think there's a law that says I can allow him to take it back, I will certainly do so.] Of course, I don't think that case is parallel at all to this one. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 02:09:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JG9qe24508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:09:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JG9lH24504 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:09:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.81]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLGNLU00.H3Y for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:10:42 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-214-245.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.245]) by bwmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8335/5256594); 20 Oct 2001 02:10:42 Message-ID: <003101c158b7$8641c040$f5d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:02:58 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >>The reason I posted this case - to get a definitive answer >>from people who know. Karel, unfortunately your timing is poor. The "people who know", or should we say the "people who know best" (e.g. Grattan), are mostly away for the next two weeks in Paris at the World Championships, with the exception of a David or two and perhaps one or two others. Thus most replies will come from us lesser mortals. >>Teams, vul vs not, dealer RHO >>S x Rho U Lho pd >>H AJ9 P 1C 2S(1) P >>D KQ9x 3S DBL P 4H >>C AKT9x P P 4S P >> P X All pass >> >>(1) weak Jump Overcall, 6 spades <11pts (normally 6-10). >>4S makes - can't be stopped. >> >>LHO's hand RHO's hand >> >>S AT98xxx S Kxx >>H Qx H Kxxx >>D AJx D xx >>C x C J8xx >> >>(1) is this call legal ?? It does not match the alerted bid. The call is legal (assuming no unbelievable regulations in - is it? - Ireland) but the explanation may not be. There is a fair chance that RHO's explanation is incomplete, because so many players regularly have good hands for a WJO opposite a passed hand. >AG : yes. You may deviate from system as long as partner >doesn't know - Law 75B. Here, there is nothing to suggest >that partner did know. This seems to be a very naive comment. LHO makes a WJO opposite a passed hand. The narrow description given above is not what many people would say. The fact that RHO is a passed hand is not "nothing". >>(2) Assuming it is legal , (they can claim the bidder deviated >>from the system, and his pd is as much in the dark as we are) - >>is this now a precedence case ?? Do subsequent alerts for >>this bid now have to say ... 12 pts, 6+ spades ?? Certainly not if later WJOs are not opposite a passed hand, IMO. >>(3) If not - where is the line drawn ?? How can we stop such, >>dare I say, "hidden" partnership agreements ?? or sloppy explanations. I don't think we can. I think that this aspect of bridge is inherently flawed. I do not know what the solution is. At World Championships, they have tried "mass provision of system in advance, including style" with limited success. At lower levels that concept is clearly unworkable. Or is it? For example, for online bridge there might one day be registers kept of all Mr X's WJOs ... but I am getting sidetracked. >>(I have been informed from various sources that a case such >>as the one above, does not constitute a precedence >>case - the reasoning is that so long as the bidders partner >>bids as if it were a weak 2 6-10pts 6 spades, the actual hand shape and points can be almost what ever they want.) This sounds a bid like a converse (wrong word perhaps) of Wolff's Rule of Coincidence, which has been more or less discredited I believe - well, anyway it doesn't have any legal basis as far as I know. RHO's bidding was consistent with either explanation, by the way. >AG : .... If 2S may be made on a wide count range, >this has to be disclosed. Yes, and it is not so unlikely that it could have a wide range. >AG: Even if there was something suspect in their auction, >you won't get any redress, since giving East the HQ and >West a small H places the 2S bid >within range and makes 4S as icy as before. So you are saying that if there was an infraction, and that if U might have passed 3S without the infraction, then there is no redress? Or if U might have passed 4S if told that 2S could be stronger opposite a passed hand, then there is no redress? If there is an incorrect explanation which affects your decision adversely, then you think there is no possible adjustment if we start twiddling the cards around? I disagree. As everyone seems IMO to have missed the point, a long explantion is necessary... The "damage" is that you have doubled both 3S and 4S on the grounds that a 6-10 hand opposite a passed hand does not add up to much, so partner is likely to have something. U have doubled 4S because the bidding combined with the explanaation suggests that they are sacrificing. However LHO's hand makes it seem possible that LHO always intended to bid 4S to make, and if his partner had any idea that LHO bids this way opposite passed hands, then LHO's opponents were entitled to know. All this may seem tenuous to some, but to others it may seem very real indeed. Karel's is IMO a good question - where does one draw the line in a case like this where several BLMLers don't even seem to appreciate what the problem is. Are cases like this too untidy, too tenuous for adjustment to be made? I think the answer is probably yes, but that the case is worth exploring. The problem with any damage claim IMO is that most of the time U would simply bid the same way even with the correct explanation, although I suppose it is possible that U thought that both (or one) of U's doubles were marginal and that the explanation under scrutiny tipped the scales. Summarising: - there may or may not have been an infraction depending on whether RHO had any idea that LHO may have extras opposite a passed hand. - there proably was damage, in an unobvious (rather than glaring) sort of way. - if there was an infraction, the damage and the infraction seem to be related, although U might have bid the same way anyway. So where does one draw the line? I don't know. Has enough info been given to draw a line in this case? No. Is all this too deep for the simplistic BLMLers? It seems so. The case would be more interesting if RHO admits (when the TD, as should be routine IMO, asks him) that he forgot (when explaining) that he was a passed hand and he should have mentioned that pard turns up with all sorts of hands for preempts opposite passed hands. Compare with Kate McCallum - Kerry Sanborn, who being scrupulously ethical, have gone to great lengths on their CC for Paris to explain that their preempts opposite passed hands might even be up to 15 points. Should they be relatively disadvantaged because they take the trouble to let their opponents know this, relative to other pairs who do not bother to point such things out?. Infraction - slight damage - damage slightly related to infraction - is this enough to adjust? Some would say yes, I think. Thus there may be a valid claim for adjustment in this case IMO, but more likely there isn't. The key information that is missing is whether RHO's explanation was complete. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 06:24:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JKNI824915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 06:23:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail8.mgfairfax.rr.com (fe8.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JKNCH24911 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 06:23:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome ([66.61.59.178]) by mail8.mgfairfax.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:17:40 -0400 Message-ID: <004001c158da$e83cd460$b23b3d42@cox.rr.com> Reply-To: "John Kuchenbrod" From: "John Kuchenbrod" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020155457.00ab2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <018c01c158ae$83b31530$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:16:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The catch is going to be this: LHO hasn't made a bid by the withdrawl of his cards, but partner "indicated" a pass by the tapping of his. So some director could construe this as partner passing out of turn, possibly drawn by LHO's removal of the cards, but still a mess. That director would apply L30B2: partner is barred, Herman can't double or redouble at this turn, look at L72B1 just in case (although partner's tap most likely was a reaction to LHO's pull). But what would a BLML director do? John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 4:04 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare > > > > At 10:56 19/10/2001 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. > > > > > >Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my > > >dream : > > > > > >LHO pnr RHO me > > >1He pass 4He > > >(*) (**) > > > > > >(*) takes away his bidding cards > > >(**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. > > > > > >An easy one : > > > > > >If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling > > > > LHO passed OOR. > > pnr accepted the pass and passed. > > RHO's turn. > > If RHO bids, bidding continues. > > If RHO passes, use L34 : the bidding reverts to you. What's funny about > > that law is that it seems that you have to do something (you may not > decide > > that bidding is over), and if you pass, the next two players may do > > something else than pass ("as if there had been no irregularity"), which > is > > strange. > > If RHO doubles or redoubles, see L19 and 36. > > Mention L74A3 to LHO & pnr. > > > > Nothing to nightmare about. > > Yes, this is was my first instinct (and it is still my only instinct). > This looks very easy but I am sure Herman has something > to surprise us. What is it going to be? > Perhaps the gag is not the application on L34 but the discussion > if taking cards away is equivalent to passing. Anyway, I'll > follow this thread with interest. > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > > > > > > > -- > > Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! > [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.html ] > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 09:51:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JNoHl05271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.de (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JNoBH05267 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:50:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 15ujJB-00057H-01; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:44:09 +0200 Received: from vwalther.de (320051711875-0001@[217.84.232.230]) by fmrl05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 15ujJ1-11WqY4C; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:43:59 +0200 Message-ID: <3BD0BA6D.8A289BDC@vwalther.de> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:42:37 +0200 From: "Volker R. Walther" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en]C-CCK-MCD QXW0323l (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grant Sterling CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320051711875-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A new approach to ride this nearly dead horse: Grants writing led me to a new look at the whole situation. Probably I am completely wrong, having less experience than you :-). He said that we could not apply the restrictions of L46B since declarers 'intention was incontrovertible different'. I am convinced that's correct. But I do not find that the intended card _is_ a played card. All I can find is: L45C4a:Compulsatory play of card A card _must_ be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. I can not read from that, that the ace of spades already _is_ played by 'designating it otherwise'; it _must_ be played. So we come back to the question how to play a card from dummy. L45B:'Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table.' and L46A 'When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.' Here is something we have to discuss: Does naming the ace and pointing to spades _clearly_ state the suit? (Declarer incotrovertible intended to play the ace of spades, but did he _clearly_ state that) If we give consent to that, then the ace of spades really _is_ played and RHO's club is a revoke. If we do not, then there is no card named (and played) from the dummy. I think then we have to apply L45D. So RHO is allowed to take back his card without penalty. Would you agree to all that? Or am I misreading the laws? My personal opinion is still that choosing two different channels to transmit an information in two seperated parts instead of tansmitting all of the information on one channel leads to more ambiguity. You may assume that you recieved all of the information when you only hear one part. Transmitting the information on two channels makes that kind of misunderstanding much more likely. So IMHO the spade suit is stated, but not _clearly_ stated. But if someone is thinking different about that, I could accept it. There is another advantage in disallowing the pointing: We have not to decide whether pointing and saying have been simultaneous events because it both leads to the same consequences. (And since Albert Einstein simultaneousness is a difficult task to deal with). Greetings, Volker -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 09:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9JNvuG05284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:57:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [65.162.17.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9JNvoH05280 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:57:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com-244.connectnc.net [65.162.23.244]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f9K06gr04227 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:06:43 -0400 Message-ID: <003401c158f8$8e837c80$f417a241@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCFEAA0.E5415BDD@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:48:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In my game, putting away your bid cards and/or tapping your pass card does not constitute a pass. A pass is either a pass card or an audible word "pass" and the auction is not over until the opening lead is faced. Right!!!???? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 4:56 AM Subject: [BLML] Nightmare > I actually woke up in a cold sweat this morning. > > Let me reconstruct the bidding from the last piece of my > dream : > > LHO pnr RHO me > 1He pass 4He > (*) (**) > > (*) takes away his bidding cards > (**) taps his pass card and starts taking them away. > > An easy one : > > If we consider (*) and (**) to be passes, what's the ruling > ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 20 19:49:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9K9mZi03126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:48:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail11.svr.pol.co.uk (mail11.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9K9mTH03122 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:48:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from barton-bramhall.fsnet.co.uk ([62.137.132.131] helo=david) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 15usef-0003b7-00; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:42:57 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c1594b$05295a60$0200a8c0@david> From: "David Barton" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <20011016234639.KVMK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> <001201c15753$1bee7900$e3417bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Open Letter Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:38:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > +=+ Leaving aside the case under discussion and > looking at the principle, is not the answer that the > Director applies Law 46? The root of the discussion > of the 'actual situation' is not that, but the differing > views whether the designation is, or is not, complete. > There is also the question whether we can or should > save an inattentive RHO from the consequences of > playing a card. Let us consider a different case. Dummy holds AKQ1098 in Diamonds opposite declarer's singleton. Dummy has no outside entry. Declarer plays AD, KD, and then nominates a Diamond. RHO at the speed of light plays the JD from his remaining Jx. Dummy who is trying to order a drink from a passing waiter has not placed a card in the played position. The Director rules under 46B that it was Declarer's incontrovertible intention to play QD. If as appears to be the case we cannot use L45C4b or L45D then RHO must now play JD under the QD giving declarer a bonus of 3 tricks. We have had no hand waving, no nominating of cards by other means and no inattention by defender. We have had 2 breaches of procedure by declaring side (declarer L46A and dummy L45B) which appears to gain 3 tricks. Any comments? ********************************************* David.Barton@cwcom.net ********************************************* -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 21 00:30:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KET8r09394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:29:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KET2H09390 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:29:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9KEMch02363 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001401c1594b$05295a60$0200a8c0@david> References: <20011016234639.KVMK17308.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.69.132]> <001201c15753$1bee7900$e3417bd5@dodona> <001401c1594b$05295a60$0200a8c0@david> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:18:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Open Letter Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:38 AM +0100 10/20/01, David Barton wrote: >We have had no hand waving, no nominating of cards by other >means and no inattention by defender. We have had 2 breaches >of procedure by declaring side (declarer L46A and dummy L45B) >which appears to gain 3 tricks. > >Any comments? I'm not so sure dummy has breached law 45B. That law doesn't say anything about timing. That's not to say we couldn't find some other law to invoke, but I don't particularly like searching the law book for a hammer with which to smite somebody. And while declarer has breached 46A, it doesn't appear to me to be a breach that should raise the ire of anyone. Aside from that, dummy's LHO has - how did you put it? - "at the speed of light" played his Jack. It sounds to me like he was trying to take advantage of what he *thought* was a bad play. Too bad. TD has ruled the declarer intended to play the queen, so it's played. Law 47 contains no basis for retraction of the Jack, so it too is played. That declarer gains from all this is just the breaks of the game. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9GI4r2UW3au93vOEQKvwwCg+RrUoQgHsliC85d1X1/MWLVPlqQAoNsM RKsy1tPJCR5KukpWNpuuj6xP =svIs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 01:58:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KFwSY11696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:58:28 +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 f9KFwMH11692 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:58:23 +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 LAA21843 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA14280 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:52:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110201552.LAA14280@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Volker R. Walther" > A new approach to ride this nearly dead horse: Yes, there is an important new element. > and L46A 'When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should > clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.' > > Here is something we have to discuss: Does naming the ace and pointing > to spades _clearly_ state the suit? As I wrote some while ago, this is a judgment decision for the TD. If declarer's combination of speaking and pointing was perfectly clear to everyone at the table, then East's club is played (and may be a revoke). If not -- as seems likely, but we weren't there to investigate -- East gets to change his card. L47E2a will do if you can't find a better one. The point is not to let declarer's infraction damage the other side. However: > If we do not, then there is no card named (and played) from the > dummy. > I think then we have to apply L45D. So RHO is allowed to take back his > card without penalty. Oh, ho! Here's something we all have missed so far. The word in L45D is *named*, not 'played' or 'designated'. Declarer may well have played or designated the S-A, but he most certainly has not 'named' it. So maybe East gets to change his card no matter how clear declarer's designation was. Does anyone like this approach? [In another related thread:] > From: Ed Reppert > TD > has ruled the declarer intended to play the queen, so it's played. > Law 47 contains no basis for retraction of the Jack, As above, L47E2a can apply whenever declarer designates dummy's card in a misleading way. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 21 06:09:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KK5gq17993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:05:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KK5ZH17989 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:05:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from karel600mhz (n-airlock228.esatclear.ie [194.165.167.228]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA20291 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:59:56 +0100 From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Alerts & incorrect explanations Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 21:05:47 +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 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip ... ] In principle the opponents can do *anything* they want, as long as their partner doesn't take action which suggest they know what's going on. I'm not playing bridge to make your life easy. I'm there because I want to dine off your liver, lungs and kidneys. Nice mini-psyche. [Karel - I quite agree that the 2S (mini psyche) bid as a 1st time deviation from the system is perfectly ok. I would not expect redress on this hand and wouldn't even bother trying to get any - worked well this time. The 4S bidder admitted she did not expect to make 4S's but was taking out insurance vs a possible vul 4 hearts and whey hey a bonanza. NP at all with the bid ... BUT was it the 1st time ?? This whole area is open to phenomenal abuse and certainly on the Irish bridge scene has caused some quite spectacular cases. I know the US has a recording system for unusual bids for players. I'm unclear as to whether this applies to major competitions only or filters down to other levels as well ?? I think this area relies on the honesty of players. I think players should upgrade their alerts certainly after 2 or more similar uses and regardless should alert "known" tendencies. So if this same pair are in a similar auction P P 1m/1H 2S, they should now alert it as either <12, 6+ spades or 6-10, 6 card suit but has been known to be stronger and has be known to have a 7 card suit in this position. I would love to believe in players sportsmanship and players doing the right thing but this would be naive in the extreme. I'd be interested in hearing people's views on how effective US the recording system is (or elsewhere in the world)?? Is it alot of work for minimal impact ?? Is it seen as potentially stagnating the flair in the game and reducing John to dining on tough old leather instead of succulent kidney's !! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 21 07:09:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL2uN18060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2eH18026 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVTY00.AIU for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:34 Message-ID: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 04:14:01 +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 Willner wrote: >Oh, ho! Here's something we all have missed so far. The >word in L45D is *named*, not 'played' or 'designated'. Declarer >may well have played or designated the S-A, but he most >certainly has not 'named' it. So maybe East gets to change >his card no matter how clear >declarer's designation was. Does anyone like this approach? Yes, me. For those too tired of this thread to be interested, Law 45D begins: "Card Misplayed By Dummy: If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did not name, ...... " In this case as originally posted by Wayne Burrows (not "Liz" as Grattan erroneously deduced), declarer did not "name" SA, so the words that introduce this Law unquestionably describe the exact situation which Wayne described. Unless one determines that the words at the start of Law 45D do not mean what they say (i.e. that the word "name" is an error in the Laws, which may well be the case), then the procedure in Law 45D has to be followed. Yes, I realise that one could claim that Law 45D is being taken out of context in this case, but who am I to deny the actual words of the Laws? - Declarer did not "name" SA. - SA thus "must be withdrawn" according to Law 45D. - RHO "may withdraw (without penalty)" his club, per Law 45D. Yes, I know this may be non-standard and not be the approved approach, but it does seem to follow what the Laws say, and does seem to legally justify what feels right to some of us - that RHO should be allowed to put his club back in his hand. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 07:09:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL3Do18069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01ps.bigpond.com (mta01ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2kH18045 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVU400.AHE for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:40 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:40 Message-ID: <034701c159a9$9bc35760$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:18:01 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Just as I would campaign for a Law 25 that said, in its entirety: > >"A call once made may not be changed." Sounds good to me. Seriously, after all the BLML discussion of the failings of Law 25B, all I can remember is that the need to change Law 25 was going to be put to the WBFLC. However, did BLML ever discuss exactly what Law 25 should be replaced by? As I often take leave of absence from BLML, I may have missed such a discussion, but if there hasn't been a constructive attempt here to create a new Law 25, then I think there should be. And I like David Burn's suggestion. Is it too radical for the rest of you? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 07:09:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL38n18064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03ps.bigpond.com (mta03ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2iH18036 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta03ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVU200.1Q6 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:38 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:38 Message-ID: <034501c159a9$9aaf2840$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 05:47:45 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: >I echo Kojak's feelings that far too many messages have been >spent on an easy one such as this. Herman wanting to stifle constructive discussion? I never thought I'd see that day. An easy one? If you read through this thread, you will discover a great variety of different approaches by different people, with almost all posts being reasonably intelligent, yet leading to no consensus at all. ACBL's Duplicate Decisions says: "CARD PLAYED This is perhaps the most frequent judgement ruling the Director is called upon to make. It is one of the most difficult rulings for players to accept .... " perhaps that should say "for BLMLers to accept", that something which in theory should be simple is actually so complex. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 07:09:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL3Bn18065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2iH18037 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVU100.BFK for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:37 Message-ID: <034401c159a9$9a320900$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 05:33:45 +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 Eric Landau wrote: >Our defender, who would like to retract his club and play a spade >without penalty, is, in effect, asking for the ... ... words of Law 45D to be applied verbatim. Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 21 07:09:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL35T18062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06ps.bigpond.com (mta06ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2gH18033 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVU000.6BQ for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:36 Message-ID: <034301c159a9$99689e80$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 05:30:35 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> Pointing is not an official designation but may >>provide some evidence as to declarer's intention. >> >+=+ What is the authority for this statement, please? >The phrase in the book is "otherwise designates" and >since this is not defined in the laws the normal >dictionary meaning of the words applies ('point out, "point out" is different from "pointing". The former can be and often is verbal, the latter is always physical, not verbal. Thus your dictionary meaning actually seems to support Wayne's comment, because you have not specified "pointing" as being part of "designating". Whilst this is what you have accomplished from the point of view of this reader, it may not have been your intention. >indicate, specify'). No doubt a regulating authority can >define acceptable methods of designating otherwise >than by naming, but I have not seen this done. If not, >the Director has to judge whether a card was >designated, designated and changed, or whatever. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ In his tome Bridge Laws As Explained in Easy To Read Format, Richard Grenside (currently in Paris) includes a TD's tip which may have application to this type of situation: "In many situations there is a dispute as to which card declarer called for. To resolve this, ask each player which card they heard. A 50/50 split would encourage the Director to look further .... whilst a 75/25 would fail to convince the Director that the card played was anything other than the card called." The relevance to this thread IMO is that the TD should ask all four players whether they saw declarer's "pointing" and what they thought it meant. This might help and cannot do much harm. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 07:09:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL35T18061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01ps.bigpond.com (mta01ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2gH18029 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVTZ00.AHD for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:35 Message-ID: <034201c159a9$98c0c5c0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 05:09:22 +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 Grant Sterling wrote: >So I see these possibilities: > > a) You rule that the designation was incomplete >but declarer's intention was incontrovertible. In this >case, the trump A is deemed to have been the played >card from the beginning This seems to me to be a wild illogical jump by you. The words "(except when declarer's different intention was incontrovertible)" in Law 46 do not make declarer's intended card a played card. It is still incompletely designated and thus not played. So Law 45D comes in, dummy has prematurely played SA, SA is withdrawn and so is the club. Now dummy can play SA (well, this time after he's told to) and RHO can play whatever she likes. >, and the club is a revoke. I >would like to see a law allowing its retraction without >penalty, but I don't yet see one [unless I can convince .... ...... myself to read Law 45D >declarer to ask me to waive the penalty under L81.] > b) You rule that the designation was incomplete, >and declarer's intention was not incontrovertible. In >that case declarer must play the A of clubs. > c) You rule that pointing at a card is a complete >designation, in which case there has been no change >of designation and the club is a revoke. > > All of these either make the club a revoke or force >declarer to play the ace of clubs. I don't think so. >What most people seem >to want is to say that declarer has changed his designation, >allowing defender to take back his card. But I see no >coherent way to make this ruling. The only way to rule >this way would be to say the following: That is an inaccurate statement by you, I think. > 1) Declarer's designation was incomplete, despite >his having pointed at the card he wanted to play, and > 2) His intention to play the A of trumps was not >incontrovertible, and > 3) His pointing at the card to play constituted a >_change of designation_ that was made _without pause for >thought_. > > I think 1,2, and 3 are all false, but ruling this >way requires us to say all three of these things. I can't >stomach that. I would always take pointing at a card as >complete designation, I would certainly take it to be >incontrovertible proof of intention I will comment on this assumption by you in a separate thread. All I will say here is that it is a dangerous to assume that one knows what "pointing" means. I learnt, from personal experience. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 07:09:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KL3DC18068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02ps.bigpond.com (mta02ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.134]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KL2jH18041 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:02:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta02ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIVU300.802 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:03:39 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1846033); 21 Oct 2001 07:03:39 Message-ID: <034601c159a9$9b3e9700$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 06:03:17 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >There is some evidence, from declarer's actions (and >perhaps from the hand itself) that his intention was not >to play the ace of clubs but the ace of spades and there is further ultra-strong evidence in Wayne's original post which started this thread: >>>>>>>>>>The following sequence of events occured: >>>>>>>>>>Declarer plays a club to the table & wins on table; >>>>>>>>>>Declarer calls for 'ace'; >>>>>>>>>>There are two aces on table the ace of clubs >>>>>>>>>>and the ace of trumps; >>>>>>>>>>Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; >>>>>>>>>>Dummy played the ace of trumps; >>>>>>>>>>rho followed with a club. >>>>>>>>>>The preamble to L46B seems to apply in that >>>>>>>>>>declarer's intention was incontrovertible. i.e. it is a stated fact in this case that "declarer intended". This seems to be incontrovertible evidence that declarer's intention was incontrovertible. David Burn continued: >There are declarers who, when leading from dummy, will call >simply for "jack" or some such. There is only one jack in dummy, >so that is the card played. But the effect of such behaviour is >simply to disconcert the opponents (and perhaps dummy, but >he does not matter), because they have to work out which card >has in fact been played, and their concentration may be broken >thereby. I know that Herman thinks I have been over-reacting to >what is apparently a small lacuna in the Laws, but >I tell you this: such incomplete designations are a particularly >irritating form of gamesmanship, and I in company with many >others would like to see them removed from the game, in the >interests of enhanced justice and enjoyment for all. I second this paragraph. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 07:43:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KLc4Z18149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:38:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com (mta05ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KLbxH18144 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:37:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.84]) by mta05ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLIXGR00.6R4 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:38:51 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-83.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.83]) by psmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8419/1860046); 21 Oct 2001 07:38:51 Message-ID: <035301c159ae$864169e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:31:04 +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 Grant Sterling wrote: > Well, he _pointed at the card_. What baffles me, and >DWS, is how anyone could have any doubts in his mind about >which card declarer was requesting when he pointed at the card. Let me tell you a true tale of what can happen to one who assumed that "pointing" at bridge means what it appears to mean. Scene: Finals of Australian Nationals, a few years ago. Using screens, we reach 5D. As I await my LHO's lead, LHO points to the Bidding Pad (in Australia we usually use Written Bidding instead of Bidding Boxes). As he once earlier had pointed to the Pad to ask what our bids meant, I explain our bidding . Alas I had signed off in 5D over partner's 4S cue despite my holding CKxxx. I had thus totally and completely denied first or second round club control in our methods (I had done so once before and my partner had made grave remarks that I must never do so again), so the last thing I wanted to do was explain the bids. I take my time to choose my words carefully, that systemically I should not have any club control but I had previously been known to depart from system (well, I thought such explanation was bending over backwards to help the guy avoid the disastrous-for-him club lead which would be the inevitable lead if I had have related the full unexpurgated truth, at this level surely I am effectively telling him that I had departed from system, well that's what I thought). LHO leads CA. Clubs is the only lead which allows 5D to make. LHO calls TD, and tells TD that I volunteered misleading info which encouraged him to lead clubs. TD adjusts score to 5D -1. After we finish, my team's Captain asks if I want to appeal. No, I say. However my Captain decides to appeal and now the fun starts. I am called in to face the AC with only my screenmate present of the other players. AC asks questions which I answer. One question is: "Why did you volunteer the information?" "Because my screenmate pointed at the Bidding Pad." "You liar, I did no such thing," says my screenmate. "Well, that's what I thought I saw," I replied. The topic changes. As other things are discussed, I suddenly realised what may have happened. Perhaps my screenmate had both hands holding his cards well above the table, and as he moved a hand down e.g. to reach for a piece of chewing gum or whatever, his hand brushed past the centre of the table as if he were pointing at the Bidding Pad, without him realising (later I kibitzed him to see if this was possible, and once I saw him make a similar motion with his hand, so I now think my guess was correct). I ask the AC if I am allowed to volunteer any extra information. "No, we've heard enough," I was told. So the AC never heard of the "innocent mixup" idea. As soon as I walk out of the AC room, into the foyer where the Finalists are clustered, my screenmate launches into "How dare you lie in there, you filthy piece of lying scum" or the like. Everyone turns and stares. As I walk past the Captain of the opposing team, he pushes me hard so that I stumble and almost fall over. The rest of the match is a blur. We lost. AC ruled under Law 73F2 that I had no demonstrable reason my my "volunteered" explanation, 5D-1. The case was published with an Editor assuming that the AC decision was based on my having misled the guy on purpose for my benefit - lots of people saw this and assumed that I go around deliberately leading opponents up the garden path to their detriment. So that's what happened to me when I assumed my opponent's "pointing" at the bridge table meant something. Does anyone have a more horrific story of the consequences of assuming that "pointing" at bridge has the "obvious" meaning? Peter Gill Australia (story is as accurate as my memory allows, the other side would tell it differently I presume). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 21 08:29:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KMN5C18215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KMMxH18211 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:23:00 +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 WAA29675 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:17:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:16:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <200110201552.LAA14280@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110201552.LAA14280@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200110201552.LAA14280@cfa183.harvard.edu>, willner@cfa.harvard.edu writes >> From: "Volker R. Walther" >> A new approach to ride this nearly dead horse: > >Yes, there is an important new element. > >> and L46A 'When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should >> clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card.' >> >> Here is something we have to discuss: Does naming the ace and pointing >> to spades _clearly_ state the suit? > >As I wrote some while ago, this is a judgment decision for the TD. If >declarer's combination of speaking and pointing was perfectly clear to >everyone at the table, then East's club is played (and may be a >revoke). If not -- as seems likely, but we weren't there to >investigate -- East gets to change his card. L47E2a will do if you >can't find a better one. The point is not to let declarer's infraction >damage the other side. > I've never for one minute doubted that the spade Ace was played. What I've doubted is whether the means by which it was designated is likely to cause damage, and whether declarer could have known that. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 09:49:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9KNhag18258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:43:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9KNhUH18254 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:43:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9KNacF21692; Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:36:39 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 19:35:28 -0400 To: "Peter Gill" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "BLML" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:14 AM +1000 10/21/01, Peter Gill wrote: >Yes, I know this may be non-standard and not be the approved approach, >but it does seem to follow what the Laws say, and >does seem to legally justify what feels right to some of us - >that RHO should be allowed to put his club back in his hand. If we take this approach, then what is the point to "or otherwise designates it" in Law 45C4(a)? Why is it in the laws at all? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9IK072UW3au93vOEQIa9wCg+yu4H9YvfwEUBot+UvSEH4ZJgrAAnjRJ f9LbM+zKR9vFHeda63ZnbA0k =AAm1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 18:57:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9L8mi227324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:48:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.bigpond.com (juicer38.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9L8mdH27320 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:48:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin7.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLJSIK00.CS2 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:49:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-153.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.153]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8329/8074492); 21 Oct 2001 18:49:32 Message-ID: <004701c15a0c$3754db60$99df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:41:44 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>Yes, I know this may be non-standard and not be the >>approved approach, but it does seem to follow what >>the Laws say, and does seem to legally justify what feels >>right to some of us - >>that RHO should be allowed to put his club back in his hand. > >If we take this approach, then what is the point to "or otherwise >designates it" in Law 45C4(a)? Why is it in the laws at all? Have a close look at the last four words in L45C4a. Law 45B covers "Play of Card from Dummy". Law 45C4a seems to me to be more concerned with the naming of cards to be played by anyone, BEFORE the card is played ["he proposes to" the Law says]. For example, if a defender as he reaches for his coffee proposes "I'm going to play H3" then H3 must be played. So, "otherwise designates" could refer to "picking up the desired card" or "touching the desired card" or, in the case of a physically handicapped player without arms, it could refer to "touching the desired card on his Card Rack with his left foot", so that someone else can then do the "playing the card" bit. If the words weren't there, I think that a player without arms might have difficulty playing a card at all, which would be unduly restrictive of the Laws. Of course it could also refer to "pointing at the card", but to claim as Grattan has that "pointing" must be part of "designating" is IMO stretching reality. I agree with (was it Volker?) who indicated that pointing may or may not be designating. We seem to be getting sidetracked from the real issue which is that the words of Law 45D seem to apply perfectly to this case and Law 45C4a seems to have nothing to do with the actual case, in which declarer was in the process of playing a card, not trying to propose a card to be played. Steve Willner's post made me think this thread has got out of control, hence my unusually large number of postings to it. Grattan seems to me to have confused "actually playing a card" with 'designating ... the card he proposes to play'. Why would the words "he proposes to" be in the Law if they had no significance? Luckily, open-minded people like you have taken part in this thread so that we are not all sucked in by those who have had blinkers on and dismissed the whole issue as "easy" and obvious. I think it is really difficult and that those who want to stymie discussion are doing BLML a disservice. I am not trying to win any popularity contests here. Grattan is allowed to say when I misinterpret the Laws so I presume I am allowed to say when IMO he seems to be doing likewise. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 19:06:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9L8wmq27337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:58:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com ([194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9L8wgH27333 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:58:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.32.161] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15vELw-0000ko-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:53:05 +0100 Message-ID: <001701c15a0d$c2735ea0$a1207ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "BLML" References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 09:52:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > At 4:14 AM +1000 10/21/01, Peter Gill wrote: > >Yes, I know this may be non-standard and not be the approved approach, > >but it does seem to follow what the Laws say, and > >does seem to legally justify what feels right to some of us - > >that RHO should be allowed to put his club back in his hand. > > If we take this approach, then what is the point to "or otherwise > designates it" in Law 45C4(a)? Why is it in the laws at all? It is in the Laws because there are situations in which declarer may not be able to name a card (perhaps his speech is impaired, perhaps dummy has left the table, perhaps declarer is in the middle of a choking fit). In those situations, declarer may play a card by "otherwise designating" it. This does not, in my opinion, constitute a licence under which declarer may confuse the defenders by naming one card while pointing at another. After all, to do so is in itself an infraction of Law (because L46 says that naming both suit and rank is something that declarer "should" do.) But it seems reasonable to me that if a declarer does this, then the card he has named is the card he has played, unless he can convince an official that it was not his intent. Any cards played by the defenders between the time that declarer names a card and the time that he is allowed to change the designation are subject to L47D and to no other Law. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 21 23:43:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9LDWqh05974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:32:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9LDWjH05970 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:32:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vId6-000CU6-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:27:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 02:25:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >Steve Willner wrote: >>Oh, ho! Here's something we all have missed so far. The >>word in L45D is *named*, not 'played' or 'designated'. Declarer >may >well have played or designated the S-A, but he most >>certainly has not 'named' it. So maybe East gets to change >>his card no matter how clear >>declarer's designation was. Does anyone like this approach? > >Yes, me. Let me see where this leads. >For those too tired of this thread to be interested, >Law 45D begins: > >"Card Misplayed By Dummy: >If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did >not name, ...... " > >In this case as originally posted by Wayne Burrows (not "Liz" >as Grattan erroneously deduced), declarer did not "name" >SA, so the words that introduce this Law unquestionably >describe the exact situation which Wayne described. > >Unless one determines that the words at the start of Law >45D do not mean what they say (i.e. that the word "name" >is an error in the Laws, which may well be the case), then >the procedure in Law 45D has to be followed. Yes, I realise >that one could claim that Law 45D is being taken out of context >in this case, but who am I to deny the actual words of the Laws? > >- Declarer did not "name" SA. > >- SA thus "must be withdrawn" according to Law 45D. > >- RHO "may withdraw (without penalty)" his club, per Law 45D. > >Yes, I know this may be non-standard and not be the approved approach, >but it does seem to follow what the Laws say, and >does seem to legally justify what feels right to some of us - >that RHO should be allowed to put his club back in his hand. So, the next time declarer points at a card in dummy, you follow suit as RHO, declarer plays a card, partner follows. If you do not like the way the trick has gone you get to change your card under L45D, yes, and play the trick again? Peter: this cannot be right. Just because you want a player to recover from not bothering to attend to play, you are messing up other situations by finding minor anomalies in the laws. Sure, there are minor anomalies, but we want to finish with a working model. OK, correct that, one or two of us do not, having other agendas, but I hope the majority want a working model. I do think whatever the original reason for the difference in wording we cannot really base this ruling on your perceived anomaly because it creates much greater problems. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 00:07:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9LDxRY05999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:59:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-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 f9LDxJH05991 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:59:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.151]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9LDriT03485 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:53:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BD28D91.FD4FC513@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:55:45 +0200 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020155457.00ab2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <018c01c158ae$83b31530$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > > > Yes, this is was my first instinct (and it is still my only instinct). > This looks very easy but I am sure Herman has something > to surprise us. What is it going to be? Hey, I am not David ! When I say, an easy one, I do mean an easy one. L34 is all there is to it. I thought it funny that I cannot simply ask for my turn, but must first allow the 4He bidder to bid again. > Perhaps the gag is not the application on L34 but the discussion > if taking cards away is equivalent to passing. Anyway, I'll > follow this thread with interest. > Well, I've said that it was to be construed that way. Far too many people take away bidding cards intending it to mean "pass", and we should not allow them to suddenly not having it mean pass. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 00:07:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9LDxQ305998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:59:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9LDxHH05989 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:59:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-151.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.151]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9LDrfT03476 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:53:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 10:42:03 +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] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Grant, Grant Sterling wrote: > > Now let's try this again. The law reads: > [very big snip] OK Grant, you've scored a point. Now what is your point ? I thought we had already established that : - the Ace of Spades has been played in this trick; - there is a problem with the seven of clubs; - everyone seems to agree that this card should be able to be retracted without penalty (and as UI to declarer); Most people have, by now, come to the conclusion that there is no "change" of card, and that by the letter of the law L45C4 and L47C should not apply. I am certain that at some time in the near future, the WBFLC will adapt the Laws or give an interpretation to fully complete this. So, who are you arguing against ? I believe this matter is settled. Not a lot of matters ever get settled on blml, so please let's stop arguing about cases that are! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 04:34:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9LIPV526790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:25:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9LIPRH26786 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:25:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.69]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLKJ7V00.6DH for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:26:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-132.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.132]) by PSMAM01.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8374/2647225); 22 Oct 2001 04:26:19 Message-ID: <001a01c15a5c$c9ce0de0$84d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:18:30 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Peter Gill wrote: >>Law 45D begins: >> >>"Card Misplayed By Dummy: >>If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did >>not name, ...... " >> >> .... Yes, I realise >>that one could claim that Law 45D is being taken out of context >>in this case, but who am I to deny the actual words of the Laws? >> >>- Declarer did not "name" SA. >> >>- SA thus "must be withdrawn" according to Law 45D. >> >>- RHO "may withdraw (without penalty)" his club, per Law 45D. >> > So, the next time declarer points at a card in dummy, you follow >suit as RHO, declarer plays a card, partner follows. If you do not >like the way the trick has gone you get to change your card under >L45D, yes, and play the trick again? OK, so that is a very strong argument that Law 45D is very badly worded and should be rectified. Perhaps David's above scenario might even be acceptable on the grounds that declarer has dug his own grave by pointing rather than following Law 45B . Perhaps not. I guess that a very unscrupulous declarer could deliberately point, then could undo the entire trick himself via Law 45D, once he's seen the cards. Yuk, that would be really bad. It seems to me that Law 45D could do with some clarification or rewording. If I may dare to use an analogy ... Although Law 25B is a yukky Law, it is still part of the Laws, and is in use with the help of any WBFLC interpretations. Although Law 45D appears to be flawed, it is still part of the Laws, and no WBFLC interpretations apply to it at present. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 04:49:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9LIfn126807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:41:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9LIfiH26803 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:41:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA10366 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA29851 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:36:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110211836.OAA29851@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > If we take this approach, then what is the point to "or otherwise > designates it" in Law 45C4(a)? Why is it in the laws at all? I think it's to prevent certain kinds of funny business. For example, declarer might point at a card in dummy, let RHO play, then call the TD and say RHO has led out of turn. Well, in my story, declarer never did play a card from dummy, did he? Fortunately, 45C4a comes to the rescue, and this ploy fails. No doubt people more devious than I can come up with better schemes. Regardless of what you think 45C4a is "for," I don't see how anyone can read it as giving _permission_ to designate a card in other than the proper way. But if someone does (illegally) designate a card, then (penalty) that card and no other must be played. At least that's how it reads to me. I agree with David S. in one thing, by the way. Although 45D fits our current case nicely, we wouldn't want to use it in some cases it also fits. I think we are back to 47E2a. In the next Laws revision, perhaps this one (and likewise 21B1) will be generalized a bit, say from "based on MI" and "because of a mistaken explanation" to something like "because of an opponent's irregularity." (Those may not be the best words, but they ought to give the idea.) In the meantime, I think we are stuck using these laws even though the wording doesn't exactly fit. Else what do we do in the L25A case? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 10:59:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9M0wI807330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:58:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9M0wBH07326 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:58:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9M0qTh20427; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:52:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:36:59 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >So, the next time declarer points at a card in dummy, you follow suit >as RHO, declarer plays a card, partner follows. If you do not like the >way the trick has gone you get to change your card under L45D, yes, and >play the trick again? > > Peter: this cannot be right. Just because you want a player to >recover from not bothering to attend to play, you are messing up other >situations by finding minor anomalies in the laws. Sure, there are >minor anomalies, but we want to finish with a working model. OK, >correct that, one or two of us do not, having other agendas, but I hope >the majority want a working model. > > I do think whatever the original reason for the difference in wording >we cannot really base this ruling on your perceived anomaly because it >creates much greater problems. I think that if Peter holds the position he has stated, he should also hold the position that if declarer commits an infraction of Laws 45B and 46A, he should (a) call attention to the irregularity (Law 9A2(a)) and (b) call the Director (Law 9B1(a)). That seems to me the only way to avoid the conundrum you point out above. Now, of course, some will cry "you're holding up the game!" Tough. We can't pick and choose which laws we will obey, and which not, nor in which circumstances we will follow the law, and in which not. That way lies chaos. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9Nt1L2UW3au93vOEQIUrwCdEm9ITY+GZX+ZQvljUGgpO8dufikAn1mm L4AMtolrfqW17wb+hCKngmWy =FVuP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 11:01:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9M11mW07346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:01:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsfep14-int.chello.nl (amsfep14-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9M11gH07342 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:01:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from anton-3fnp4arvg ([62.108.28.112]) by amsfep14-int.chello.nl (InterMail vM.5.01.03.06 201-253-122-118-106-20010523) with SMTP id <20011022005602.YFQI25701.amsfep14-int.chello.nl@anton-3fnp4arvg> for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:56:02 +0200 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20011022025612.00f28468@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:56:12 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare In-Reply-To: <3BD28D91.FD4FC513@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011020155457.00ab2ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <018c01c158ae$83b31530$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:55 AM 10/21/2001 +0200, you wrote: >Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> >> >> Yes, this is was my first instinct (and it is still my only instinct). >> This looks very easy but I am sure Herman has something >> to surprise us. What is it going to be? > >Hey, I am not David ! > >When I say, an easy one, I do mean an easy one. > >L34 is all there is to it. > >I thought it funny that I cannot simply ask for my turn, but >must first allow the 4He bidder to bid again. > >> Perhaps the gag is not the application on L34 but the discussion >> if taking cards away is equivalent to passing. Anyway, I'll >> follow this thread with interest. >> > >Well, I've said that it was to be construed that way. Far >too many people take away bidding cards intending it to mean >"pass", and we should not allow them to suddenly not having >it mean pass. > this reminds me to a discussion long ago with dws anbout someone that took away his cards without seeing he was doubled :) i stated this was a pass; he wasnt convinced then, and think is isnt still convinced, but never entered this problem. regards, anton > >-- >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/ > > 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 Mon Oct 22 11:08:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9M18GY07359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:08:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9M18AH07355 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:08:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9M12Vh00401; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:02:31 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110211836.OAA29851@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200110211836.OAA29851@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:00:15 -0400 To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:36 PM -0400 10/21/01, willner@cfa.harvard.edu wrote: > > From: Ed Reppert > > If we take this approach, then what is the point to "or otherwise > > designates it" in Law 45C4(a)? Why is it in the laws at all? > >I think it's to prevent certain kinds of funny business. For example, >declarer might point at a card in dummy, let RHO play, then call the >TD and say RHO has led out of turn. Well, in my story, declarer never >did play a card from dummy, did he? Fortunately, 45C4a comes to the >rescue, and this ploy fails. No doubt people more devious than I can >come up with better schemes. I suspect it's a waste of time to sit around thinking up ways people *might* cheat, just so we can catch them at it. >Regardless of what you think 45C4a is "for," I don't see how anyone can >read it as giving _permission_ to designate a card in other than the >proper way. But if someone does (illegally) designate a card, then >(penalty) that card and no other must be played. At least that's how it >reads to me. First, it's not a matter of "permission". People do things, usually through ignorance, which are not proper procedure. Perhaps the laws would be simpler if they simply said "this is proper procedure, and anyone who does not follow it will be summarily shot", but the laws aren't that simple. Nor should they be. >I agree with David S. in one thing, by the way. Although 45D fits our >current case nicely, we wouldn't want to use it in some cases it also >fits. I think we are back to 47E2a. In the next Laws revision, >perhaps this one (and likewise 21B1) will be generalized a bit, say >from "based on MI" and "because of a mistaken explanation" to something >like "because of an opponent's irregularity." (Those may not be the >best words, but they ought to give the idea.) In the meantime, I think >we are stuck using these laws even though the wording doesn't exactly >fit. Else what do we do in the L25A case? You know, other than academically, I'm not really interested in what the laws *ought* to say, or how they might be changed in future. I want to know how to rule on cases that might turn up *now*. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9NwLb2UW3au93vOEQI7cgCg0mCN7qmjN9Ewm9aGOkR/nRiwG68AnjWN mP9aX3nSIsHDEMw0xtaFHGBG =QzYO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 13:00:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9M307u08824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:00:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9M301H08820 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:00:02 +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 WAA16108 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id WAA04728 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110220254.WAA04728@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > also hold the position that if declarer commits an infraction of Laws > 45B and 46A, he should (a) call attention to the irregularity (Law > 9A2(a)) L9A2a uses 'may', not 'should'. We have often observed this before. > only way to avoid the conundrum you point out above. I don't doubt this is the only way to be certain of what will happen. In practice, ignoring the irregularity will rarely lead to trouble, but it is the rare exceptions we hear about on BLML. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 22 20:24:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MAK2w24820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:20:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MAJtH24816 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:19:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.156.207] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15vc63-0000Ua-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:14:16 +0100 Message-ID: <006701c15ae2$3de4d440$cf9c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200110211836.OAA29851@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:13:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > I suspect it's a waste of time to sit around thinking up ways people > *might* cheat, just so we can catch them at it. Curiously enough, I think that this is actually the only sensible way to construct a set of Laws. If a Law is to work, then it must be capable of preventing any and all kinds of unfair play in the situations that it covers. I have heard many times the argument that "if people want to cheat, they will cheat", as if that were the fault of the people, rather than the fault of the Laws for providing an environnment in which it is possible to cheat profitably. > >I agree with David S. in one thing, by the way. Although 45D fits our > >current case nicely, we wouldn't want to use it in some cases it also > >fits. So what? We do not choose when we want or do not want to use the Laws. We use them when they apply, and we do not use them when they do not. Obviously, L45D ought to say "a card that declarer did not name or otherwise designate" (or, more succinctly, "a card that declarer did not play"). But it doesn't, and while it doesn't, we are compelled to live with the consequences. If those consequences are occasionally beneficial but more often foolish, that has nothing to do with what we "want". > You know, other than academically, I'm not really interested in what > the laws *ought* to say, or how they might be changed in future. I > want to know how to rule on cases that might turn up *now*. By following what the words in the lawbook say. This, although in many cases more difficult than it ought to be, is at least a starting point. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 20:32:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MAU8a24835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:30:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MAU2H24831 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:30:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.156.207] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15vcFi-0005U8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:24:14 +0100 Message-ID: <006f01c15ae3$a28b51c0$cf9c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:23:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk HdW wrote: > I thought we had already established that : > > - the Ace of Spades has been played in this trick; No, Herman. That is something you have established in your own mind, because you accept that the declarer's designation of the ace of spades is complete. But there are those who do not believe this, and to them, it has not been established at all that the ace of spades is a played card. The ace of clubs has been played to this trick; the ace of spades may be substituted for it if the TD so rules; but until that happens, it has not been played. > - there is a problem with the seven of clubs; There isn't. Until the TD makes a judgement regarding the ace of spades, the seven of clubs is a card legally played at East's turn to play. If the TD allows a change to the ace of spades, then the seven of clubs may be withdrawn without penalty; otherwise, it will remain on the table until the current (club) trick is completed. > - everyone seems to agree that this card should be able to > be retracted without penalty (and as UI to declarer); How do they imagine that this can happen, since (if the ace of spades is played and the ace of clubs is not), the seven of clubs is an unestablished revoke? Of course, those who do not think that the ace of spades is played will have no difficulty in returning the seven of clubs to the defender's hand. But under what Law are you proposing to do it? > Most people have, by now, come to the conclusion that there > is no "change" of card, and that by the letter of the law > L45C4 and L47C should not apply. If not those, then which? You really cannot say: "we want to give the man his club back, but we can't think of a Law under which to do it, so we will invoke the Spirit of the Game" (or some other phantom). > I am certain that at some time in the near future, the WBFLC > will adapt the Laws or give an interpretation to fully > complete this. Do not, as they say, hold your breath. > I believe this matter is settled. Not a lot of matters ever > get settled on blml, so please let's stop arguing about > cases that are! Herman, if you believe that: the ace of spades is a played card, but the ace of clubs is not; and yet the seven of clubs may be withdrawn without penalty then this matter is very far from settled. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 20:36:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MAXVZ24847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:33:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f108.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MAXPH24843 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:33:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 03:27:44 -0700 Received: from 143.117.47.187 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:27:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [143.117.47.187] From: "Alan Hill" To: a.witzen@chello.nl Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Nightmare Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:27:44 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2001 10:27:44.0562 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FE45120:01C15AE4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Snip >this reminds me to a discussion long ago with dws anbout someone that took >away his cards without seeing he was doubled :) >i stated this was a pass; he wasnt convinced then, and think is isnt still >convinced, but never entered this problem. >regards, >anton I played a contract last night for an overtrick and was surprised to learn I'd been doubled. I must have removed my cards rather than passing. Does this mean that the auction is still not over? _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 20:52:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MApm524870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:51:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MApfH24865 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:51:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vcal-0001OS-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:46:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:40:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >Hello Grant, > >Grant Sterling wrote: >> >> Now let's try this again. The law reads: >> > >[very big snip] > >OK Grant, you've scored a point. > >Now what is your point ? > >I thought we had already established that : > >- the Ace of Spades has been played in this trick; >- there is a problem with the seven of clubs; >- everyone seems to agree that this card should be able to >be retracted without penalty (and as UI to declarer); Everyone? Just because some people do not see fit to post again does not mean that they have changed their position. I have seen very little to suggest that the C7 should be retracted without penalty. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 20:52:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MApjV24869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:51:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MApbH24860 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 20:51:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vcal-0001OU-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:46:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:42:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <001a01c15a5c$c9ce0de0$84d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <001a01c15a5c$c9ce0de0$84d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill writes >David Stevenson wrote: >>Peter Gill wrote: >>>Law 45D begins: >>> >>>"Card Misplayed By Dummy: >>>If dummy places in the played position a card that declarer did >>>not name, ...... " >>> >>> .... Yes, I realise >>>that one could claim that Law 45D is being taken out of context >>>in this case, but who am I to deny the actual words of the Laws? >>> >>>- Declarer did not "name" SA. >>> >>>- SA thus "must be withdrawn" according to Law 45D. >>> >>>- RHO "may withdraw (without penalty)" his club, per Law 45D. >>> >> So, the next time declarer points at a card in dummy, you follow >>suit as RHO, declarer plays a card, partner follows. If you do not >>like the way the trick has gone you get to change your card under >>L45D, yes, and play the trick again? > > >OK, so that is a very strong argument that Law 45D is very badly >worded and should be rectified. Perhaps David's above scenario >might even be acceptable on the grounds that declarer has dug his own >grave by pointing rather than following Law 45B . Perhaps not. > >I guess that a very unscrupulous declarer could deliberately >point, then could undo the entire trick himself via Law 45D, once he's >seen the cards. Yuk, that would be really bad. It seems to >me that Law 45D could do with some clarification or rewording. > >If I may dare to use an analogy ... > >Although Law 25B is a yukky Law, it is still part of the Laws, >and is in use with the help of any WBFLC interpretations. > >Although Law 45D appears to be flawed, it is still part of the >Laws, and no WBFLC interpretations apply to it at present. There are plenty of laws without WBFLC interpretations. They are still applied in a way that works. It is not necessary to have a WBFLC interpretation to apply a Law sensibly when there seems some doubt otherwise. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 21:53:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MBrR124934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:53:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MBrLH24930 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:53:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.124.194] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15vdYV-0003ov-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:47:44 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:47:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Everyone? Just because some people do not see fit to post again does > not mean that they have changed their position. I have seen very little > to suggest that the C7 should be retracted without penalty. Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card has he played? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 22:43:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MCgmv28328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:42:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MCghH28324 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:42:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9MCb6d79160 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:37:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022082245.00abec90@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:37:11 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <200110201552.LAA14280@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 10/20/01, willner wrote: >Oh, ho! Here's something we all have missed so far. The word in L45D >is *named*, not 'played' or 'designated'. Declarer may well have >played or designated the S-A, but he most certainly has not 'named' >it. So maybe East gets to change his card no matter how clear >declarer's designation was. Does anyone like this approach? Yes! This may be the legal hook we need to justify what most of us would like to be able to do in this situation. Declarer has not named a card (L46A). When RHO draws attention to this, the SA must be withdrawn (L45D). However, as it has already been unambiguously "otherwise" designated (L46B), it must now be played (L45C4a). RHO is now permitted to retract his club and follow suit without penalty (L45D). Much carping has been heard here about the flogging of dead horses, but Steve has demonstrated that sometimes they're not so dead; some sharp eye may yet find some new interpretation or argument that has been overlooked by those among us who might have wanted to bury the horse prematurely, even after most of us believe that all that there is to be said on some subject has been. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 22:50:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MCob228342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:50:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9MCoVH28338 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:50:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9MCisl12868 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:44:54 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 13:44 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card 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: <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card > has he played? TD judgement call, probably SA. This is my first entry to the thread and the stuff below does not relate to any particular message. As I see it there are 4 basic situations and I would wish to rule differently in each. a) TD judges that declarer accidently made an ambiguous/confusing designation and defender plays the wrong suit. I want to rule: Pick up the card played without penalty, if either of you feel damaged at the end of the hand please call me back. b) TD judges that declarer deliberately made an ambiguous/confusing designation and defender plays the wrong suit. I want to rule : The card played is the suit played by defender (PP/DP to declarer as well). c) TD judges that declarer accidently made an ambiguous/confusing designation but defender, knowing full well what was intended, played the wrong suit quickly in an attempt to gain legal advantage. I want to rule: Unestablished revoke - lead penalties etc (PP/DP to defender). d) TD judges that declarer deliberately made an ambiguous/confusing designation and defender, knowing full well what was intended, played the wrong suit quickly in an attempt to gain legal advantage. I want to rule: You lot deserve each other, play with yourselves for the rest of the evening because you shouldn't be out in public. I can live without legal support for option d) but I would feel the law inadequate if I couldn't give all of a),b),c) as appropriate. a) would be the standard ruling at the Wood* (but b/c/d would probably only come up once every hundred years). *albeit that most people play dummy themselves Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 23:03:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MD2Fk28359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:02:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ns1.telekom.ru (root@ns1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MD29H28355 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:02:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h101.50.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.50.101]) by ns1.telekom.ru (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9MCuTM22994; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:56:29 +0400 Message-ID: <3BD40AA0.99A4C2BA@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:01:36 +0400 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Burn CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all:) David Burn ÐÉÛÅÔ: > Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card > has he played? > IMO that it'll be pure case for "could have known" decision: so for TD as (or) for AC. Best wishes Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 22 23:12:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MDCGw29564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:12:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-4.cais.net (stmpy-4.cais.net [205.252.14.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MDC9H29543 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:12:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9MD6X483023 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:06:38 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] In-Reply-To: <034701c159a9$9bc35760$bfd536cb@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 04:18 PM 10/20/01, Peter wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >Just as I would campaign for a Law 25 that said, in its entirety: > > > >"A call once made may not be changed." > >Sounds good to me. Seriously, after all the BLML discussion >of the failings of Law 25B, all I can remember is that the need to >change Law 25 was going to be put to the WBFLC. However, did BLML ever >discuss exactly what Law 25 should be replaced by? > >As I often take leave of absence from BLML, I may have missed such a >discussion, but if there hasn't been a constructive attempt here to >create a new Law 25, then I think there should be. And >I like David Burn's suggestion. Is it too radical for the rest of you? It is for most of us, I think. We have indeed discussed how L25 might be recast. A plurality, probably a majority, seems to favor a new L25 which would be just the current L25A, although "consensus" would be too strong a word. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 00:41:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MEfBm09729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:41:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MEf6H09725 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:41:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA00456 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:35:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA11635 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:35:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:35:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110221435.KAA11635@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve has demonstrated that sometimes they're not so dead; some sharp > eye may yet find some new interpretation or argument... It was Volker, not me, who spotted L47D, so he should get the credit for that. (I just repeated his argument in slightly different words.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 00:47:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MElbm09744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:47:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MElVH09740 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 00:47:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vgGy-000AEG-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:41:52 +0000 Message-ID: <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:25:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >>So, the next time declarer points at a card in dummy, you follow suit >>as RHO, declarer plays a card, partner follows. If you do not like the >>way the trick has gone you get to change your card under L45D, yes, and >>play the trick again? >> >> Peter: this cannot be right. Just because you want a player to >>recover from not bothering to attend to play, you are messing up other >>situations by finding minor anomalies in the laws. Sure, there are >>minor anomalies, but we want to finish with a working model. OK, >>correct that, one or two of us do not, having other agendas, but I hope >>the majority want a working model. >> >> I do think whatever the original reason for the difference in wording >>we cannot really base this ruling on your perceived anomaly because it >>creates much greater problems. > >I think that if Peter holds the position he has stated, he should >also hold the position that if declarer commits an infraction of Laws >45B and 46A, he should (a) call attention to the irregularity (Law >9A2(a)) and (b) call the Director (Law 9B1(a)). That seems to me the >only way to avoid the conundrum you point out above. Now, of course, >some will cry "you're holding up the game!" Tough. We can't pick and >choose which laws we will obey, and which not, nor in which >circumstances we will follow the law, and in which not. That way lies >chaos. Who is "we"? BLML cannot, because they are not the regulating authority. But it is incumbent on authorities to provide a working model for us. Now, we already know one or two anomalies where we do not exactly follow the law as written [the most famous case was in the 1987 Law book, where Duplicate Bridge was forbidden by Law 6]. Currently we deal with an OLOOT as we know the laws mean rather than as they say. It really comes back to whether you are looking for an argument about English, in which case I am sure you are right, or about how we should apply the Laws. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 02:15:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MGFAP09808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:15:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MGF4H09804 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:15:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.188.251] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15vhdn-0000Bi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:09:28 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c15b13$eae580a0$fbbc7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022092605.00b153c0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:09:19 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >>Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card >>has he played? > Neither, yet. He has named the CA, which must be played per > L45C4a. He has simultaneously "otherwise designated" the SA, which > also must be played per L45C4a. He has therefore "play[ed] two or more > cards simultaneously", both of which were visible to the defenders, so > L58B2 applies: he must designate which of the two cards he proposes to > play, and that one becomes the played card. > > Dummy now places the played card in the "played position" > (L45B). Regardless of which card is now "played", the CA is still the > (only) card which was "named". Per L45D (thanks, Steve), if declarer > plays the SA, a defender who has erroneously followed to the CA may > correct his play without penalty, but if declarer plays the CA, a > defender who has erroneously followed to the SA is stuck with his play > (a revoke, albeit in most cases an unestablished revoke). This looks like a splendid scheme, since I can now generate penalty cards at will simply by calling for one card from dummy while pointing at another. My "choice of play" will, of course, depend on the suit to which my opponent has followed. Now, you may tell me I can't carry on doing this because you will somehow stop me. But the possibility ought not to exist for me to be able to do it even once. The above scenario is typical of what you allow if you follow the principle that the Laws do not mean what the words say, but what you want them to mean. > ...none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the case at hand, > in which *no* card was named. Well, the declarer said "ace", and there is a Law according to which this was equivalent to naming the ace of clubs. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 02:42:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MGfpG09828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:41:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MGfjH09824 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:41:46 +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 f9MGa8805676 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:36:09 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9MGa8l07912 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:36:08 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:36:07 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01430 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:36:07 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA16756 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:36:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:36:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of TO doubles were alertable. The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner has bid/doubled/redoubled). So what about (all doubles TO): 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 03:28:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MHSDV16719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:28:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9MHRtH16715 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:27:56 +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 f9MHLDf13499; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:21:18 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011022121803.00a155e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:22:47 -0500 To: "Peter Gill" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Cc: "BLML" In-Reply-To: <034701c159a9$9bc35760$bfd536cb@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 06:18 AM 10/21/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >David Burn wrote: > >Just as I would campaign for a Law 25 that said, in its entirety: > > > >"A call once made may not be changed." > >Sounds good to me. Seriously, after all the BLML discussion >of the failings of Law 25B, all I can remember is that the need to >change Law 25 was going to be put to the WBFLC. However, did BLML ever >discuss exactly what Law 25 should be replaced by? > >As I often take leave of absence from BLML, I may have missed such a >discussion, but if there hasn't been a constructive attempt here to >create a new Law 25, then I think there should be. And >I like David Burn's suggestion. Is it too radical for the rest of you? > >Peter Gill >Australia. Put me down as a supporter of the not-quite-consensus view, namely that we should simply delete L25B. In addition, in view of the 'Played Card' thread, I think we should add a sentence to L25 [A] that makes it clear that if an inadvertent call is corrected LHO gets to take back any call he made without penalty, specifying that the call is UI to everyone. 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 Tue Oct 23 03:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MHV4c16731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:31:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MHUwH16727 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:30:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vipD-0001vg-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:25:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:55:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> Everyone? Just because some people do not see fit to post again >does >> not mean that they have changed their position. I have seen very >little >> to suggest that the C7 should be retracted without penalty. > >Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card >has he played? He has played the ace of clubs, but might be permitted to change it under L45C4B. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 03:42:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MHg2T16747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:42:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9MHfuH16743 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:41:56 +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 f9MHZdf19994; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:35:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011022122446.00a147a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:37:15 -0500 To: "Peter Gill" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "BLML" In-Reply-To: <001a01c15a5c$c9ce0de0$84d536cb@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 04:18 AM 10/22/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >Peter Gill wrote: > > So, the next time declarer points at a card in dummy, you follow > >suit as RHO, declarer plays a card, partner follows. If you do not > >like the way the trick has gone you get to change your card under > >L45D, yes, and play the trick again? > > >OK, so that is a very strong argument that Law 45D is very badly >worded and should be rectified. Perhaps David's above scenario >might even be acceptable on the grounds that declarer has dug his own >grave by pointing rather than following Law 45B . Perhaps not. > >I guess that a very unscrupulous declarer could deliberately >point, then could undo the entire trick himself via Law 45D, once he's >seen the cards. Yuk, that would be really bad. It seems to >me that Law 45D could do with some clarification or rewording. In fact, since the law specifies that the card must be withdrawn if attention is drawn before both sides have played to the _next_ trick, this means that _everyone_ [RHO, LHO and declarer] get to see the entire trick if they want to, plus the lead to the next trick, before deciding whether or not to undo the whole process. And while the law specifies that RHO and declarer get to take back their cards if they want to, it doesn't say that LHO does. So declarer can actually let RHO follow to the card he has clearly otherwise designated, follow suit to the card himself, let LHO take the trick and lead to the next trick...and then declarer can call attention to dummy's "misplay". He then names a card of another suit. Now he, RHO, and LHO have all revoked, and LHO has led out of turn. If RHO changes his card to follow suit, declarer can change his card, leaving LHO with a revoke and a lead out of turn. If you say that LHO can take back his revoke under L47D, what about his LOOT? I hope no-one other than David Burn seriously believes that the benefits we get from reading this law literally outweigh the headaches it creates. I am becoming more convinced that the correct route is to ask declarer to request a waiver of penalty under L81C8. I know some people don't like the TD making such requests, but here's a case for it if any. >If I may dare to use an analogy ... > >Although Law 25B is a yukky Law, it is still part of the Laws, >and is in use with the help of any WBFLC interpretations. > >Although Law 45D appears to be flawed, it is still part of the >Laws, and no WBFLC interpretations apply to it at present. I agree with DWS--we don't interpret the laws in such a way as to produce chaos, regardless of how they are worded. I would be far happier with someone who says we should twist the words of L47E to fix this case than with someone who says we should read L45D literally to do so. Shows you what a sicko I am. >Peter Gill 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 Tue Oct 23 03:55:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MHtir17512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:55:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9MHtVH17508 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:55:39 +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 f9MHnHf27136; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:49:17 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011022123902.00a25190@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:50:52 -0500 To: "Peter Gill" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: "BLML" In-Reply-To: <034201c159a9$98c0c5c0$bfd536cb@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 05:09 AM 10/21/01 +1000, Peter Gill wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >So I see these possibilities: > > > > a) You rule that the designation was incomplete > >but declarer's intention was incontrovertible. In this > >case, the trump A is deemed to have been the played > >card from the beginning > >This seems to me to be a wild illogical jump by you. > >The words "(except when declarer's different intention was >incontrovertible)" in Law 46 do not make declarer's intended >card a played card. It is still incompletely designated and thus >not played. So Law 45D comes in, dummy has prematurely >played SA, SA is withdrawn and so is the club. Now dummy >can play SA (well, this time after he's told to) and RHO can >play whatever she likes. This wasn't the way I read L46B originally, and isn't the way Grattan tells us it's supposed to be read. That may not make me right, but it at least should mean that it wasn't a "wildly illogical jump". Grattan and I interpret L46B's parenthetical comment to mean that a card 'incontrovertibly intended' is considered played from the beginning, and no reference to L45 is then made. > >What most people seem > >to want is to say that declarer has changed his designation, > >allowing defender to take back his card. But I see no > >coherent way to make this ruling. The only way to rule > >this way would be to say the following: > >That is an inaccurate statement by you, I think. I now see two ways to make this ruling: the one I gave, and the literal L45D approach. I'm not sure which I find less palatable. > > 1) Declarer's designation was incomplete, despite > >his having pointed at the card he wanted to play, and > > 2) His intention to play the A of trumps was not > >incontrovertible, and > > 3) His pointing at the card to play constituted a > >_change of designation_ that was made _without pause for > >thought_. > > > > I think 1,2, and 3 are all false, but ruling this > >way requires us to say all three of these things. I can't > >stomach that. I would always take pointing at a card as > >complete designation, I would certainly take it to be > >incontrovertible proof of intention > >I will comment on this assumption by you in a separate thread. >All I will say here is that it is a dangerous to assume that one >knows what "pointing" means. I learnt, from personal experience. Your other case was one where you, apparently, thought someone pointed when they didn't. My claim is that when declarer _does_ point at a card from dummy in a situation like the one given, I would always rule as TD that he has otherwise designated that card. [OK, I can see someone right now thinking "Oh, so suppose I say 'Play the Ace of Clubs and do not under any circumstances play this (pointing) ace of trumps here to this trick' you're going to rule the ace of trumps has been designated?" Fine: "I would _almost_ always rule that he has otherwise designated that card".] But I agree that RHO should be careful about what card has been designated from dummy whenever there is any pointing or gesturing or incomplete designation going on. >Peter Gill 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 Tue Oct 23 04:01:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MI1bT17530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9MI11H17526 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:01:02 +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 f9MHsgf29632; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:54:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011022125108.00a195c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:56:17 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:55 PM 10/22/01 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >David Burn writes > >Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card > >has he played? > > He has played the ace of clubs, but might be permitted to change it >under L45C4B. If the pointing is unmistakeable, I rule he has played both cards. I now apply L58B2. [This time defender certainly gets to take his play back without penalty.] >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK 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 Tue Oct 23 04:12:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MICJU17547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:12:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MICDH17543 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:12:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f9MI6cw02010 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:03:08 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > Peter wrote: > > >David Burn wrote: > > > Just as I would campaign for a Law 25 that said, in its entirety: > > > "A call once made may not be changed." Yes, and leave it up to the ZOs to define the criteria for determining whether a call has been made (authorized by L18F?). Not an easy task with bidding boxes. The current ACBL regulation says that a call is made when it is completely removed from the box "with intent." Until it is completely removed, the identity of a card grasped is UI. Generally speaking, if the question is close whether a bid was completely removed from the box, it is considered unplayed. Lack of intent must be very obvious. An example of no intent is when a red double card is placed on the table and a skip bid put on top of it. Obviously the player intended to put out a red STOP card, not a double. > >Sounds good to me. Seriously, after all the BLML discussion > >of the failings of Law 25B, all I can remember is that the need to > >change Law 25 was going to be put to the WBFLC. However, did BLML ever > >discuss exactly what Law 25 should be replaced by? > > > >As I often take leave of absence from BLML, I may have missed such a > >discussion, but if there hasn't been a constructive attempt here to > >create a new Law 25, then I think there should be. And > >I like David Burn's suggestion. Is it too radical for the rest of you? > > It is for most of us, I think. We have indeed discussed how L25 might > be recast. A plurality, probably a majority, seems to favor a new L25 > which would be just the current L25A, although "consensus" would be too > strong a word. Certainly there is a near-consensus that L25B should be deleted. 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 Oct 23 04:38:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MIbne17575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:37:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f52.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.52]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MIbiH17571 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:32:04 -0700 Received: from 172.138.233.39 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:32:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.138.233.39] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:32:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2001 18:32:04.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8B55860:01C15B27] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Grant Sterling > Put me down as a supporter of the not-quite-consensus >view, namely that we should simply delete L25B. In addition, >in view of the 'Played Card' thread, I think we should add a >sentence to L25 [A] that makes it clear that if an inadvertent >call is corrected LHO gets to take back any call he made >without penalty, specifying that the call is UI to everyone. I thought the current state of affairs was that the call is AI to the LHO and his partner, but UI otherwise. Why should it be UI to everyone? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 04:43:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MIh3e17592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:43:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MIgvH17588 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:42:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9MIbHh15512 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110220254.WAA04728@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200110220254.WAA04728@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:28:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:54 PM -0400 10/21/01, willner@cfa.harvard.edu wrote: >L9A2a uses 'may', not 'should'. We have often observed this before. I know that. My point was that if one wishes to avoid the problems caused by failure to follow correct procedure, or at least avoid exacerbating them, one should scrupulously follow that procedure oneself. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9RnYb2UW3au93vOEQJ6VACffkD+aSzX25ctPjPFdDUtYLeUtVUAn0OX amDsrE22FDFLLAfsVGJPGXkF =mMxJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 05:08:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MJ8Tm17614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:08:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MJ8OH17610 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:08:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9MJ2jh19747 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <001301c15aef$4c4294c0$c27c7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:58:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card >has he played? The ace of clubs. But so what? That's not what happened. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9RtWL2UW3au93vOEQIdFACgkK+FHDgCRYrgiTKfSShAap4LybUAoJvR QpNGVVfWgZowqxhSzxdJzvza =i+nk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 05:23:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MJMtR17641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:22:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9MJMiH17637 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:22:45 +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 f9MJGNf12522; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:16:23 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011022141404.00a12780@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:17:58 -0500 To: "Todd Zimnoch" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:32 AM 10/22/01 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: Grant Sterling >> Put me down as a supporter of the not-quite-consensus >>view, namely that we should simply delete L25B. In addition, >>in view of the 'Played Card' thread, I think we should add a >>sentence to L25 [A] that makes it clear that if an inadvertent >>call is corrected LHO gets to take back any call he made >>without penalty, specifying that the call is UI to everyone. > > I thought the current state of affairs was that the call is AI to the > LHO and his partner, but UI otherwise. Why should it be UI to everyone? > >-Todd If I drop the 2S card, clearly accidentally, and LHO trots out a double before I can correct my mistake, I see no reason why RHO should get to know that he has a double of 2S. An inadvertent bid, IMHO, "never happened", and therefore a bid over an inadvertent bid should be considered never to have happened, either. The closest legal equivalent to that is 'he gets to take it back, but it's UI to everybody'. 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 Tue Oct 23 05:46:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MJjPf17663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:45:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MJjJH17659 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:45:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9MJdg739979 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:39:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022153359.00b156b0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:39:48 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:36 PM 10/22/01, Robin wrote: >As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of >TO doubles were alertable. > >The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of >natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner >has bid/doubled/redoubled). > >So what about (all doubles TO): > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? > >Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). >What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference >between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). I'm in the camp that believes that "natural" is synonomous with "not conventional". Pass-or-correct bids, IMO, are not conventional, as they do not "convey[] a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named..." I would therefore find that the 2H and 3C P/C bids are indeed "natural suit bids below 3NT", making the TO doubles not alertable. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 05:49:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MJnWr17675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:49:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MJnRH17671 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 05:49:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9MJho740324 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022154231.00b0f440@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:43:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Accidentally posted privately to DB earlier today (apologies to David for the double post)... >At 07:47 AM 10/22/01, David wrote: > >>Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card >>has he played? > >Neither, yet. He has named the CA, which must be played per >L45C4a. He has simultaneously "otherwise designated" the SA, which >also must be played per L45C4a. He has therefore "play[ed] two or >more cards simultaneously", both of which were visible to the >defenders, so L58B2 applies: he must designate which of the two cards >he proposes to play, and that one becomes the played card. > >Dummy now places the played card in the "played position" >(L45B). Regardless of which card is now "played", the CA is still the >(only) card which was "named". Per L45D (thanks, Steve), if declarer >plays the SA, a defender who has erroneously followed to the CA may >correct his play without penalty, but if declarer plays the CA, a >defender who has erroneously followed to the SA is stuck with his play >(a revoke, albeit in most cases an unestablished revoke). > >...none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the case at hand, >in which *no* card was named. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 06:18:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MKIVX17708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:18:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MKIPH17704 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9MKCLh04368; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:12:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:06:17 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: David Stevenson Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David writes: > Who is "we"? BLML cannot, because they are not the regulating >authority. But it is incumbent on authorities to provide a working >model for us. Now, we already know one or two anomalies where we do not >exactly follow the law as written [the most famous case was in the 1987 >Law book, where Duplicate Bridge was forbidden by Law 6]. Currently we >deal with an OLOOT as we know the laws mean rather than as they say. > > It really comes back to whether you are looking for an argument about >English, in which case I am sure you are right, or about how we should >apply the Laws. "We" is players, TDs, and ACs. I'm not looking for an argument at all. But the Laws are written in English, so the interpretation of them depends on the rules of written English. I'm not Humpty Dumpty - I don't believe words mean whatever I want them to mean. They mean what they say, and what they say is defined by their definitions and the rules by which they are put together - the rules of English. It seems clear to me that the Laws in this area are ambiguous, whatever the reason for that. You want to rely on TDs to apply the Laws "sensibly". Well and good, but it is clear from this thread that how to sensibly apply the Laws to this case is interpreted differently by different people. We also want the Laws, and their interpretation, to be consistent, so that a player in one place can expect not to see radically different rulings when he plays in another - subject to local regulations legally implemented to supplement the laws, of course. I had originally felt that the SA is played, and declarer's RHO has revoked. However, there's been such a row about this that now I don't know what to think. I'm going to review the entire thread, and the law book, before I try to decide on which side of the fence I should come down. In the meantime, I hope the next issue of the laws cleans up all these problems we've been finding. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9R9vr2UW3au93vOEQKpXwCfaIjrKSBZgUaZYZzkcIjFjU16DYYAn2pR sYoNTQ6d/M84eKTQth/1y0d9 =TeAy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 06:40:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MKeED17721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:40:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MKe9H17717 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:40:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA19310 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:34:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12836 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:34:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:34:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110222034.QAA12836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I'm in the camp that believes that "natural" is synonomous with "not > conventional". In general that may be true, but the EBU has a specific definition of 'natural' for purposes of alerting. I'm too lazy to pull out the Orange Book, but my *guess* would be that none of the bids is natural according to the EBU definition. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 07:24:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MLNe420742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:23:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MLNYH20721 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:23:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f9MLHww25944 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:15:58 -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: "Robin Barker" > As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of > TO doubles were alertable. > > The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of > natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner > has bid/doubled/redoubled). The corollary, I take it, is that TO doubles of artificial bids are Alertable. > > So what about (all doubles TO): > > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? 2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable > > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable > > (3) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? Not Alertable > > (4) 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? 3C not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable > > (5) 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? Now 3C has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable > > (6) 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? Not Alertable > > Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). > What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference > between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). Obviously I agree, speaking only from personal opinion, not from any knowledge of EBU regulations. 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 Oct 23 07:38:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MLbxd24202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:37:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MLbqH24176 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:37:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9MLVHF07293; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:31:17 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110222034.QAA12836@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200110222034.QAA12836@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:29:01 -0400 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:34 PM -0400 10/22/01, Steve Willner wrote: >=20 the EBU has a specific definition >of 'natural' for purposes of alerting. I'm too lazy to pull out >the Orange Book, but my *guess* would be that none of the bids is >natural according to the EBU definition. 5.3 'Natural' calls =20 5.3.1 =20 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: =20 (a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about=20 any other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before=20 opener rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a=20 bid of 2 [C] in a 3=3D4=3D3=3D3 hand precisely in response to 1 [S] is=20 considered natural. =20 (b) a bid of no trumps which you are prepared to play at that=20 level, which is not forcing and which conveys no information about=20 your suit holdings. =20 (c) A pass which does not convey values or specify suit holdings. =20 (d) a double if it is: =20 (i) a take out double of a suit bid naturally at the one,=20 two or three level when your partner has not had a chance to call or=20 has passed without indicating values. =20 (ii) a penalty double otherwise; this includes the double=20 of a suit bid other than naturally to show you hold it. Note: when you pass your partner's take out double to convert it to a=20 penalty double, you are showing values; after this has happened take=20 out doubles are alertable, but penalty doubles are not. =20 (e) a redouble when it shows strength and you are prepared to=20 play in the redoubled contract, but not if it indicates specific suit=20 holdings. 5.4 Specific Cases The following are interpretations of the above directive in some=20 difficult, or perhaps surprising, circumstances. =20 5.4.1 =20 Because it is not natural, you must alert: =20 (a) a Stayman response to 1NT, and a rebid of 2 [D] . =20 (b) an opening bid of one of a suit (including Clubs) in which=20 your partner may hold fewer than four cards. =20 (c) a short suit trial bid, or any trial bid in a suit that may=20 contain fewer than three cards. =20 (d) a pass that shows unexpected extra values. =20 (e) a double of a 1NT response which is a take out of opener's suit. =20 (f) any 'competitive', 'negative' or 'responsive' double. =20 (g) the completion of a transfer bid. =20 (h) your partner's 2 [C] bid after the double of your opening=20 1NT if it is the first move in an agreed rescue manoeuvre; you should=20 not alert it if it is an attempt to find either a fit in Clubs or=20 some other suit if 2 [C] is doubled. =20 5.4.2 =20 Because you have an agreement by which it is forcing or=20 non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect, you=20 must alert: =20 (a) a non-forcing new suit response to an opening bid, unless: =20 (i) responder has previously passed, or =20 (ii) the opening bid was doubled, or =20 (iii) the response is at the game or slam level, or =20 (iv) the opening bid was overcalled with a natural no trump bi= d =20 (b) a forcing raise after an opening bid at the one-level. =20 (c) a non-jump natural response to an opening natural 1NT bid if for= cing. =20 (d) a Weak two or Strong-but-not-forcing 2-level opening bid. =20 5.4.3 =20 Because of agreements which your opponents are unlikely to=20 expect, you must alert: =20 (a) a penalty double of an opening natural 1NT which may have=20 less than the normally accepted point-count (ie 15 HCP or=20 compensating distribution). =20 (b) after partner's opening 1-bid is doubled for takeout, a pass=20 that could have 10+ HCPs or other defined characteristics. =20 (c) the first bid in a possible 'canap=E9' sequence. =20 (d) the rebid in a possible 'canap=E9' sequence if in a suit that=20 may be shorter than the first suit. =20 (e) the rebid in a possible 'canap=E9' sequence if in no trumps=20 that may conceal a suit longer than the first suit. =20 (f) after partner's opening bid and a pass (but not an overcall=20 or a double), a pre-emptive raise to three. =20 (g) a minimum suit response to a takeout double that shows values. =20 5.4.4 =20 You should not alert: =20 (a) a weak jump overcall, or any wide range jump overcall that=20 might be made on a very weak hand. =20 (b) a non-forcing overcall where the suit may contain only four car= ds. =20 (c) a 5-card major opening bid. =20 (d) a natural response to an opening bid when a takeout double=20 has intervened whether forcing or non-forcing =20 (e) a 'wide range' natural opening bid. =20 (f) a natural opening bid of 4 [H] or 4 [S] when you also have=20 a South African Texas 4 [C] or 4 [D] or similar conventional bid in=20 your system. =20 (g) a natural 1NT opening that has some agreed distributional=20 restraints like, for instance, having no 4-card major, or allowing a=20 6-card minor. =20 (h) a long suit trial bid showing at least three cards in the suit = bid. =20 (j) an opening 2NT which is normally balanced (or=20 semi-balanced) but may be bid on occasion with a singleton. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9SQX72UW3au93vOEQKiPgCfQd7qAxBYWoe4Gah0ffgkLet12CgAn211 d18XNf1hJ3mUvVWl3XAMZfMd =7mF/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 07:55:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9MLsUC28034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:54:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9MLsOH28017 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:54:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9MLmld40770 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:48:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:15 PM 10/22/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Robin Barker" > > > So what about (all doubles TO): > > > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > >2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable > > > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable [and more, similarly] I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm wrong then it's not natural. It must, however, be whichever it is when one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. Imagine, Marvin, entering an event where the alerting rules are: "(1) All calls which are not natural must be alerted. (2) All calls which are natural must not be alerted." (These hypothetical rules seem to me to be a lot more clear and unambiguous than any alerting regs I've ever dealt with.) You open 2D Multi, LHO passes, and pard bids 2H P/C. Are you going to alert? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 12:14:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9N2CQI06390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:12:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9N2CCH06386 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:12:14 +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 CAA02899 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:06:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:01:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <006f01c15ae3$a28b51c0$cf9c7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <006f01c15ae3$a28b51c0$cf9c7ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006f01c15ae3$a28b51c0$cf9c7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >HdW wrote: > >> I thought we had already established that : >> >> - the Ace of Spades has been played in this trick; > fwiw, I am of the view that declarer named the ace of clubs when he said "Ace", but that his intention is incontrovertibly that he intended to play the spade Ace (and I'm not one to let player's change their card easily). It follows therefore that once this trick actually does get under way (and it didn't get under way while RHO thought the Ace of clubs had been played) then the lead card will be the spade Ace. In the meantime we have the problem of a card intentionally exposed by declarer's RHO. Without question it is an infraction, just to say "Ace". We know this because there is a law (46A) that deals with incomplete designations *even though we're not going to apply it*. The heading while not part of the law makes this clear. During the period after the word "ace" and the clarification that it is the spade Ace which is to be played, LHO is entitled to believe that the CA has been played and is now in trouble. If you accept there was an infraction then under law 72 I can assign an adjusted score (or to make matters easy I can tell defender to pick his card up (AI to defenders, UI to declarer)) If you don't accept that there was an infraction then under 47A you can rule (if you choose to) that the C7 is not a penalty card. You are not obliged to rule it a MPC as the verb used is *may*. In any event, I'm going to be pretty pissed off with declarer for his probably unintentional, (but I don't have to judge intent when could have known applies) shot at getting a penalty card out of RHO and I'm on pretty firm ground to let defender pick his card up. I think what happened is as follows. declarer said "ace of clubs, sorry no Ace of spades" and the club 7 got played in the interim. Why else did defender play the C7, because he heard "Ace [of clubs]"? That one is easy to rule. Anyway I'd have to have been at the table and had the whole scene re- enacted before I'd make up my mind. cheers john. >No, Herman. That is something you have established in your own mind, >because you accept that the declarer's designation of the ace of spades >is complete. But there are those who do not believe this, and to them, >it has not been established at all that the ace of spades is a played >card. The ace of clubs has been played to this trick; the ace of spades >may be substituted for it if the TD so rules; but until that happens, it >has not been played. > >> - there is a problem with the seven of clubs; > >There isn't. Until the TD makes a judgement regarding the ace of spades, >the seven of clubs is a card legally played at East's turn to play. If >the TD allows a change to the ace of spades, then the seven of clubs may >be withdrawn without penalty; otherwise, it will remain on the table >until the current (club) trick is completed. > >> - everyone seems to agree that this card should be able to >> be retracted without penalty (and as UI to declarer); > >How do they imagine that this can happen, since (if the ace of spades is >played and the ace of clubs is not), the seven of clubs is an >unestablished revoke? Of course, those who do not think that the ace of >spades is played will have no difficulty in returning the seven of clubs >to the defender's hand. But under what Law are you proposing to do it? > >> Most people have, by now, come to the conclusion that there >> is no "change" of card, and that by the letter of the law >> L45C4 and L47C should not apply. > >If not those, then which? You really cannot say: "we want to give the >man his club back, but we can't think of a Law under which to do it, so >we will invoke the Spirit of the Game" (or some other phantom). > >> I am certain that at some time in the near future, the WBFLC >> will adapt the Laws or give an interpretation to fully >> complete this. > >Do not, as they say, hold your breath. > >> I believe this matter is settled. Not a lot of matters ever >> get settled on blml, so please let's stop arguing about >> cases that are! > >Herman, if you believe that: > >the ace of spades is a played card, but the ace of clubs is not; and yet >the seven of clubs may be withdrawn without penalty > >then this matter is very far from settled. > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 12:19:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9N2IuN06402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:18:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9N2IoH06398 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:18:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SuSE Linux 8.9.3-0.1) with ESMTP id CAA02904 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:13:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:08:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >From: "Robin Barker" > > >> As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of >> TO doubles were alertable. >> >> The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of >> natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner >> has bid/doubled/redoubled). > >The corollary, I take it, is that TO doubles of artificial bids are >Alertable. >> >> So what about (all doubles TO): >> >> (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > >2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable >> >> (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable >> >> (3) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? > >Not Alertable >> >> (4) 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? > >3C not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable >> >> (5) 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >Now 3C has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable >> >> (6) 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? > >Not Alertable >> >> Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). >> What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference >> between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). > >Obviously I agree, speaking only from personal opinion, not from any >knowledge of EBU regulations. > I agree with Marv, and I do know the EBU regs :) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 12:20:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9N2KHj06414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:20:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9N2KAH06410 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:20:11 +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 CAA02908 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 02:14:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 03:09:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau writes >At 05:15 PM 10/22/01, Marvin wrote: > >>From: "Robin Barker" >> >> > So what about (all doubles TO): >> >> > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? >> >>2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable >> >> > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? >> >>Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable > >[and more, similarly] > >I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm >wrong then it's not natural. It must, however, be whichever it is when >one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a >natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. > >Imagine, Marvin, entering an event where the alerting rules are: "(1) >All calls which are not natural must be alerted. (2) All calls which >are natural must not be alerted." (These hypothetical rules seem to me >to be a lot more clear and unambiguous than any alerting regs I've ever >dealt with.) You open 2D Multi, LHO passes, and pard bids 2H P/C. Are >you going to alert? > I am. Explain as "to play in 2H if that is my suit" cheers john > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com >APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org >1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 15:13:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9N5Cuq08166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:12:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9N5CpH08162 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:12:51 +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 f9N57Ew27908 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 22:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002101c15b80$664abc80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 21:56:05 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > Marvin wrote: > > >From: "Robin Barker" > > > > > So what about (all doubles TO): > > > > > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > > > >2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable > > > > > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > > > >Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable > > [and more, similarly] > > I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm > wrong then it's not natural. > It must, however, be whichever it is when > one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a > natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. I should have written "in effect has become a natural bid," I suppose. The opponents have shown four or more cards in hearts now, making any call that establishes that fact (the pass) the vehicle for making any heart bid, future or previous, *in effect* now a "natural" bid. A double of hearts at this point would be assumed takeout, so no Alert of the double. You believe that 2H was natural, based on your interpretation of the current definition of "convention" ("...a meaning other than willingness to play..."). That could be argued, but going along with that there is nothing I know of that says a bid that is not a convention is necessarily "natural." For instance, a 1NT opening bid with unbalanced distribution is neither natural nor a convention. > > Imagine, Marvin, entering an event where the alerting rules are: "(1) > All calls which are not natural must be alerted. (2) All calls which > are natural must not be alerted." (These hypothetical rules seem to me > to be a lot more clear and unambiguous than any alerting regs I've ever > dealt with.) You open 2D Multi, LHO passes, and pard bids 2H P/C. Are > you going to alert? > Yes, because at this point 2H is not a natural bid, whether it is a convention or not. A major suit bid has to show four or more cards in the suit to be considered natural, I believe. That is why a double at this point should show hearts if not Alerted. It is normal to expect an Alert if a suit known to be held by the opponents is doubled for business (partner not having acted), but not if it is doubled for takeout. Conversely, an Alert is expected if the double of a suit not known to be held by the opponents is for takeout, but not if the double shows the suit. If regulations don't say this, they should. What the EBU think about all this, I don't know. John Probst says he knows, and agrees. Thanks, John. 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 Oct 23 18:23:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9N8M4e08272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:22:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9N8LwH08268 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:21:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.72.23] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15vwjR-0004V8-00; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:16:18 +0100 Message-ID: <001f01c15b9a$fbae9b60$17487ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "David Stevenson \(EBU\)" , "Max Bavin" References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:16:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 5:36 PM Subject: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct > As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of > TO doubles were alertable. > > The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of > natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner > has bid/doubled/redoubled). > > So what about (all doubles TO): > > 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > > 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > > 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? > > 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? > > 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? > > 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? > > Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). > What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference > between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). > > Robin It's worse than that. You have (presumably) to alert a takeout double after 1NT Pass 2D Pass 2H Dble for 2H is defined as not natural in our regulations. I bet no one knows this! David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 21:47:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NBk7829131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:46:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NBjtH29095 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:45:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vzuo-000Mbp-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:40:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:07:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Eric Landau" >> Peter wrote: >> >David Burn wrote: > >> > > Just as I would campaign for a Law 25 that said, in its >entirety: >> > > "A call once made may not be changed." > >Yes, and leave it up to the ZOs to define the criteria for >determining whether a call has been made (authorized by L18F?). Not >an easy task with bidding boxes. > >The current ACBL regulation says that a call is made when it is >completely removed from the box "with intent." Errrr, Marv .... I could be wrong, I often am, but I think you will find that the call is made when it is completely removed from the box is the regulation everywhere in the world *except* the ACBL. I think the ACBL have changed it to it is made when it is placed on or near the table. > Until it is >completely removed, the identity of a card grasped is UI. Generally >speaking, if the question is close whether a bid was completely >removed from the box, it is considered unplayed. > >Lack of intent must be very obvious. An example of no intent is when >a red double card is placed on the table and a skip bid put on top >of it. Obviously the player intended to put out a red STOP card, not >a double. I always thought lack of intent was to make sure that no-one could claim a call was made just because a bidding box was knocked over, or something. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 21:47:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NBk7o29132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:46:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NBjtH29096 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 21:45:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15vzuo-000Mbq-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:40:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:13:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 05:15 PM 10/22/01, Marvin wrote: > >>From: "Robin Barker" >> >> > So what about (all doubles TO): >> >> > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? >> >>2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable >> >> > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? >> >>Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable > >[and more, similarly] > >I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm >wrong then it's not natural. It must, however, be whichever it is when >one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a >natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. > >Imagine, Marvin, entering an event where the alerting rules are: "(1) >All calls which are not natural must be alerted. (2) All calls which >are natural must not be alerted." (These hypothetical rules seem to me >to be a lot more clear and unambiguous than any alerting regs I've ever >dealt with.) You open 2D Multi, LHO passes, and pard bids 2H P/C. Are >you going to alert? Perhaps the difference is that in case #2 the defender is actually doubling opener's natural pass? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 22:53:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NCoOp06261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:50:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NCoIH06257 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 22:50:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9NCidd89398 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011023082512.00ab8220@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:44:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:09 PM 10/22/01, John wrote: >In article <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1>, Eric Landau > writes > >At 05:15 PM 10/22/01, Marvin wrote: > > > >>From: "Robin Barker" > >> > >> > So what about (all doubles TO): > >> > >> > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > >> > >>2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable > >> > >> > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >> > >>Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable > > > >[and more, similarly] > > > >I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm > >wrong then it's not natural. It must, however, be whichever it is when > >one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a > >natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. > > > >Imagine, Marvin, entering an event where the alerting rules are: "(1) > >All calls which are not natural must be alerted. (2) All calls which > >are natural must not be alerted." (These hypothetical rules seem to me > >to be a lot more clear and unambiguous than any alerting regs I've ever > >dealt with.) You open 2D Multi, LHO passes, and pard bids 2H P/C. Are > >you going to alert? > >I am. Explain as "to play in 2H if that is my suit" cheers john Sure. You either alert, or you don't. What you don't do is alert when planning to correct but not when planning to pass. For lack of a specific guideline addressing the 2H response to 2D Multi, I would expect it to fall into the same category as "completion of a transfer". Apparently the completion of a transfer is considered "not natural" in the EBU [aside: Thanks to Ed for posting the EBU regs], but it is treated as natural under ACBL regs, not alertable unless carrying some additional unexpected message (e.g. fewer than four cards in the suit). I'm happy with calling it natural, and I'm happy with calling it not natural. But I don't see how it can be called ambiguous, either natural or not depending on whether or not partner passes it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 23 23:15:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NDCNY10171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:12:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NDCHH10159 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:12:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.21.58] (helo=[217.35.21.58]) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15w1GQ-00063K-00; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:06:38 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001f01c15b9a$fbae9b60$17487ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <001f01c15b9a$fbae9b60$17487ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:06:37 +0100 To: From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Cc: "David Stevenson \(EBU\)" , "Max Bavin" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 9:16 am +0100 23/10/01, David Burn wrote: >Robin wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robin Barker" >To: >Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 5:36 PM >Subject: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct > > >> As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of >> TO doubles were alertable. >> >> The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of >> natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner >> has bid/doubled/redoubled). >> >> So what about (all doubles TO): >> >> 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? >> >> 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? >> >> 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? >> >> 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? >> >> 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? >> >> 2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? >> >> Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). >> What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference >> between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). >> >> Robin > >It's worse than that. You have (presumably) to alert a takeout double >after > >1NT Pass 2D Pass >2H Dble > >for 2H is defined as not natural in our regulations. I bet no one knows >this! > >David Burn >London, England But presumably not 1NT Pass 2D Pass 3H Dble where 3H shows four card support. I wonder about 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3D Dble where 2NT is a transfer to diamonds and 3D shows diamond support but not necessarily length. -- Gordon Rainsford London 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 Oct 24 00:20:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NEFBK16838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:15:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NEF6H16834 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:15:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9NE8LF14557; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:08:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:01:56 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:07 AM +0100 10/23/01, David Stevenson wrote: > I could be wrong, I often am, but I think you will find that the call >is made when it is completely removed from the box is the regulation >everywhere in the world *except* the ACBL. > > I think the ACBL have changed it to it is made when it is placed on or >near the table. It's dangerous to take *anything* on the ACBL website as gospel, but.... http://www.acbl.org/regulations/bidbox.htm#Call A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. Until the card has been completely removed from the box, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9V6EL2UW3au93vOEQL68ACfXFujw4rtxxWtvxe68mHgXVKg1W8AnRYm t7nj7t80v7Fgfrg548XXCNPM =/Fic -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 00:33:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NETIQ16852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:29:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NETCH16848 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:29:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9NEMSF00203; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:22:28 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:22:57 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations Cc: David Stevenson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hah! See, I told you believing anything on the ACBL web site was dangerous! Turns out David was right. :-) http://www.acbl.org/minutes/003birmingham.htm BIDDING BOXES - No Screens Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. Hm. Does the word "must" here mean a violation of this regulation is "serious indeed" (as stated in the Preface to the Laws)? If so, does that mean that a PP is *required*? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 00:36:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NEWg116872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:32:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NEWaH16868 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:32:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA03110 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:26:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA20072 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:26:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:26:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110231426.KAA20072@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > It's dangerous to take *anything* on the ACBL website as gospel, but.... > > http://www.acbl.org/regulations/bidbox.htm#Call I think the web site is up to date in this instance. The rule changed some time ago, perhaps two or three years. Before the change, in the ACBL the call was made when "laid on the table" or something similar, but now the rule conforms to international practice. The change may have been simultaneous with the change from "egregious error" to "irrational, wild, or gambling" as the grounds for denying redress to the NOS. I thought that change was from Miami, but 1996 seems too long ago. Not all AC's seem to have gotten the word yet. As far as I know, the ACBL does not (yet?) accept the Code of Practice, although I'm not sure it would make any real difference in rulings. Another difference from international practice is that our definition of "logical alternative" is much stricter than elsewhere, i.e. some actions that are not LA's in most of the world are LA's here. Linda: do you recall the dates? Or is my history completely wrong? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 00:43:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NEhCs18901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:43:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NEh6H18888 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:43:06 +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 QAA17088; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:34:12 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA09453; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:37:16 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011024163308.00abcbd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:37:25 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:36 22/10/2001 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: >As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of >TO doubles were alertable. > >The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of >natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner >has bid/doubled/redoubled). > >So what about (all doubles TO): > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? AG : in cases # 2, 3, 5 and 6, the last suit named is the opponent's best suit, and the double is a TO double of a natural suit bid (either named or implied by the pass). Not alertable given the axiomata. In cases # 1 and 4, it is quite possible that no opponent has the last suit named, so the last bid is to be classified as artificial. Refer to the section pertaining to doubles of artificial bids. I guess TO doubles of artificial bids have to be alerted. But this is a typical case where national/regional styles may vary, TO doubles are quite plausible (#1 is standard in Belgium), and an opponent who acts on the presumption of a PenX will be said "not to have protected himself". 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 Oct 24 00:47:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NElcg19903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:47:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9NElWH19881 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:47:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA17956; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:38:38 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA13464; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:41:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011024164028.00ab73d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:41:53 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> References: <007b01c15b3e$da954480$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:48 22/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Imagine, Marvin, entering an event where the alerting rules are: "(1) All >calls which are not natural must be alerted. (2) All calls which are >natural must not be alerted." (These hypothetical rules seem to me to be >a lot more clear and unambiguous than any alerting regs I've ever dealt >with.) You open 2D Multi, LHO passes, and pard bids 2H P/C. Are you >going to alert? AG : yes I am. But I do not alert opener's pass of 2H. Thus, 2H is artificial (TOX is alertable) but pass is natural (TOX is not alertable). Too sketchy, perhaps ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 00:52:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NEqK220875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:52:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NEqFH20864 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:52:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA03998 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA20137 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:46:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110231446.KAA20137@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > Hah! See, I told you believing anything on the ACBL web site was > dangerous! Turns out David was right. :-) > > http://www.acbl.org/minutes/003birmingham.htm The link above doesn't work for me, but you can download a PDF file at http://www.acbl.org/minutes/003birmingham.pdf The relevant section is 003-81 (at the bottom of page 24). Now I'm not sure whether this is a change back to the previous rules or if I'm just completely confused. > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens > > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A > call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the > bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or > maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. I think this is a better rule than the international one, although it could certainly be phrased better. If it were in effect, we could do away with L25A corrections, in my opinion. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 00:55:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NEtlh21323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:55:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9NEteH21312 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:55:41 +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 QAA19718; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:46:47 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA21322; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:49:52 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011024164427.00a2f080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:50:01 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <002101c15b80$664abc80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:56 22/10/2001 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >It is normal to expect an Alert if a suit known to be held by the opponents >is doubled for business (partner not having acted), but not if it is doubled >for takeout. Conversely, an Alert is expected if the double of a suit not >known to be held by the opponents is for takeout, but not if the double >shows the suit. If regulations don't say this, they should. AG : yes, I like this idea of 'suit having been shown by the opponents'. Say LHO opens 2D, 55 majors. RHO answers 2K. This may be on as few as 2 cards, and RHO doesn't perhaps relish the idea of playing in 2H. But a double of 2H is logically for TO, and not alertable. The suit has been shown by one opponent as long. Or condsider a correction of Namyats. Coujld even be made on a void. Hardly natural, but... This solves the problem Marv's (and yours truly's) way. Regards, Alain. >What the EBU think about all this, I don't know. John Probst says he knows, >and agrees. Thanks, John. > >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 Wed Oct 24 01:11:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NFBDL23926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:11:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu ([139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NFB7H23915 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:11:08 +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 f9NF4gU13380; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:04:42 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011023100415.00a18490@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:06:18 -0500 To: Eric Landau From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022154231.00b0f440@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:43 PM 10/22/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >Accidentally posted privately to DB earlier today (apologies to David for >the double post)... > >>At 07:47 AM 10/22/01, David wrote: >> >>>Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which card >>>has he played? >> >>Neither, yet. He has named the CA, which must be played per L45C4a. He >>has simultaneously "otherwise designated" the SA, which also must be >>played per L45C4a. He has therefore "play[ed] two or more cards >>simultaneously", both of which were visible to the defenders, so L58B2 >>applies: he must designate which of the two cards he proposes to play, >>and that one becomes the played card. >> >>Dummy now places the played card in the "played position" >>(L45B). Regardless of which card is now "played", the CA is still the >>(only) card which was "named". Per L45D (thanks, Steve), if declarer >>plays the SA, a defender who has erroneously followed to the CA may >>correct his play without penalty, but if declarer plays the CA, a >>defender who has erroneously followed to the SA is stuck with his play (a >>revoke, albeit in most cases an unestablished revoke). Doesn't L58B3 allow defender to take back his play regardless of which card declarer withdraws? >>...none of which has anything whatsoever to do with the case at hand, in >>which *no* card was named. > > >Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 04:36:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NIZns20256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:35:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NIZiH20252 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:35:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from marvin (dt064nce.san.rr.com [24.30.155.206]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f9NIU6w16633 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:30:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000701c15bf0$a4fce3c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:29:16 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >The current ACBL regulation says that a call is made when it is > >completely removed from the box "with intent." > > Errrr, Marv .... > > I could be wrong, I often am, but I think you will find that the call > is made when it is completely removed from the box is the regulation > everywhere in the world *except* the ACBL. > > I think the ACBL have changed it to it is made when it is placed on or > near the table. > I only know for sure what I get from the ACBL website, which is sometimes not updated, so you could be right. As of now, however, the regulation (on a page dated May 1998) reads: ########### Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. Until the card has been completely removed from the box, the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information. A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding box card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, without pause for thought, and partner has not subsequently called. If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call was a mechanical problem, they should be liberal in judging pause for thought. It is difficult, however, to justify pulling a bid in place of a pass, double or redouble as a mechanical error. Calls from different pockets should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent. One understandable exception is placing the double card out followed shortly with a bid card that skips the bidding. This appears clear that the double card was placed inadvertently on the table. ########## The Tech files in the ACBLScore software expands on this a bit without contradicting any of it. The reason I say you could be right is that Chris Patrias, representing Gary Blaiss (ACBL CTD) at the Competition & Conventions committee meeting (which I attend) in Toronto, said that ACBL TDs are ruling bidding box bids about the same as for declarer's played card, as you describe. However, Gary does not create regulations, the BoD does that, and I don't remember seeing anything concerning this matter in the BoD minutes. I suppose "completely removed from the box" could be interpreted as being placed on or near the table, but that seems a stretch. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 05:32:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NJW3420292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:32:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NJVrH20284 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:31:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15w7Bj-0006pG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:26:14 +0100 Message-ID: <9WCeU3ADPY17Ewab@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:50:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of >TO doubles were alertable. > >The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of >natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner >has bid/doubled/redoubled). > >So what about (all doubles TO): > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? Alertable. >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? Alertable. >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? Not alertable. >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? Alertable. >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? Alertable. >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? Not alertable. >Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). >What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference >between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). Possibly there should be, but in my view there is not. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 05:32:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NJW3F20293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:32:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NJVrH20285 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:31:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15w7Bj-0006pF-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 20:26:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4mVfoqAcNY17EwZh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:49:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <001f01c15b9a$fbae9b60$17487ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001f01c15b9a$fbae9b60$17487ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >It's worse than that. You have (presumably) to alert a takeout double >after > >1NT Pass 2D Pass >2H Dble > >for 2H is defined as not natural in our regulations. I bet no one knows >this! Not only do I know this, I know the case which brought it to prominence! Risley, Warrington, about five years ago. 1NT P 2H P 2S P P X P 3D P P 3S P P X P P P 2H was a transfer, 2S automatic. Both alerted. No other alerts. The double of 2S was on S AKQxx, and the player was charmed to be given a chance to double 3S as well. Naturally the 1NT opener claimed damage because the double of 2S was not alerted. Unfortunately for him, the alerting regulations were shown to him ........ :) -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 05:53:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NJqwu20319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:52:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9NJqqH20315 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:52:53 +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 f9NJlFw25673 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004a01c15bfb$63bf87e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 12:46:15 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Hah! See, I told you believing anything on the ACBL web site was > dangerous! Turns out David was right. :-) > > http://www.acbl.org/minutes/003birmingham.htm > > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens > > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A > call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the > bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or > maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. Thanks, Ed, I hadn't remembered that. Getting old... This is indeed the way ACBL TDs are ruling. One wonders why the ACBL website can't be kept up to date. Any comment, Chyah? > Does the word "must" here mean a violation of this regulation is > "serious indeed" (as stated in the Preface to the Laws)? If so, does > that mean that a PP is *required*? :-) The ACBL's use of "must" seems to be different from that of the Laws, as this rule is *never* enforced in my experience. Taken literally, it means that touching a card constitutes a bid. Evidently the ACBL's "must" has merely the force of the Laws' "should." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 06:53:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NKrQQ20355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 06:53:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9NKrLH20351 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 06:53:21 +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 f9NKlhw13591 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005c01c15c03$cd1139c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110231446.KAA20137@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL Bidding Box Regulations Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:45:55 -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" > The relevant section is 003-81 (at the bottom of page 24). Now I'm not > sure whether this is a change back to the previous rules or if I'm just > completely confused. > > > BIDDING BOXES - No Screens > > > > Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A > > call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the > > bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or > > maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made. > > I think this is a better rule than the international one, although it > could certainly be phrased better. If it were in effect, we could do > away with L25A corrections, in my opinion. Ignoring the first sentence, as is implied by the rest, this is much too lenient. It too easily permits a player to have a change of mind and declare "no intent." I remember this subject being discussed at a C&C meeting, but don't remember a consensus on the matter. Perhaps the final language came out of a C&C subcommittee. Evidently the C&C committee passed this language on to the BoD, who approved it (stating it came from the C&C) in Birmingham. It became effective January 1, 2001. I guess it's difficult to keep the ACBL website up to date. Three interesting items from the ACBLScore Tech files, labeled "Office Policy" (i.e., not the BoD's words) and dated April 1997. These were intended as guidelines for L25 rulings by ACBL TDs in accordance with the then-new 1997 Laws. (1) It continues to be difficult to justify pulling a bid in place of a pass, double, or redouble as mechanical [error]. Calls from different pockets should be rarely, if at all, treated as inadvertent. (2) [paraphrased] A change made within the bounds of inadvertency but probably based on a change of mind caused by partner's "Alert" should be allowed in order to arrive at a bridge result. Later, a ruling of UI and its consequences can be made. Immediately following is (3) In most cases the decision should be that without doubt the bidder would have become aware of his misbid because when he took note of LHO's call he would have become aware of the entire auction including his last call. This procedure will produce a 'bridge' result at the table rather than rolling the dice to see which side benefits from a rather rigid interpetation of the law." That looks rather permissive, but I'm not sure what it means exactly. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 07:01:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NL14L20372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:01:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NL0wH20368 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:00:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9NKtJo18335 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:55:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011023164505.00ab8760@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:55:24 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011023100415.00a18490@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022154231.00b0f440@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:06 AM 10/23/01, Grant wrote: >At 03:43 PM 10/22/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>At 07:47 AM 10/22/01, David wrote: >>> >>>>Declarer, saying "ace of clubs", points to the ace of spades. Which >>>>card >>>>has he played? >>> >>>Neither, yet. He has named the CA, which must be played per >>>L45C4a. He has simultaneously "otherwise designated" the SA, which >>>also must be played per L45C4a. He has therefore "play[ed] two or >>>more cards simultaneously", both of which were visible to the >>>defenders, so L58B2 applies: he must designate which of the two >>>cards he proposes to play, and that one becomes the played card. >>> >>>Dummy now places the played card in the "played position" >>>(L45B). Regardless of which card is now "played", the CA is still >>>the (only) card which was "named". Per L45D (thanks, Steve), if >>>declarer plays the SA, a defender who has erroneously followed to >>>the CA may correct his play without penalty, but if declarer plays >>>the CA, a defender who has erroneously followed to the SA is stuck >>>with his play (a revoke, albeit in most cases an unestablished revoke). > > Doesn't L58B3 allow defender to take back his >play regardless of which card declarer withdraws? Yes; I'd overlooked it. Several people objected to my (and others') stretching L45D to cover this situation, for which it was never intended. L58B3 addresses this situation directly, so there's no need to use L45D at all. What's more, I think this is exactly the result we want. We get to treat David B.'s declarer exactly as we would had he physically detached the SA from dummy and moved it to the "played position" while simultaneously saying "ace of clubs" out loud (stipulating, of course, that his "pointing" was unambiguously directed at the SA). Or reached over and simultaneously detached and moved both cards. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 07:18:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NLI7e20400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:18:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NLI1H20396 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:18:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9NLCMC41262 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011023165839.00affca0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:12:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] In-Reply-To: <000701c15bf0$a4fce3c0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b24$31bb6700$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 02:29 PM 10/23/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "David Stevenson" > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > >The current ACBL regulation says that a call is made when it is > > >completely removed from the box "with intent." > > > > Errrr, Marv .... > > > > I could be wrong, I often am, but I think you will find that the call > > is made when it is completely removed from the box is the regulation > > everywhere in the world *except* the ACBL. > > > > I think the ACBL have changed it to it is made when it is placed on or > > near the table. > > > >I only know for sure what I get from the ACBL website, which is sometimes >not updated, so you could be right. As of now, however, the regulation (on >a page dated May 1998) reads: > >########### >Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes > >A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the >box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the >offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is >considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with >apparent intent. Until the card has been completely removed from the box, >the director will treat the situation as unauthorized information. > >A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25, >only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding box card, >and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, without pause for >thought, and partner has not subsequently called. > >If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call was a >mechanical problem, they should be liberal in judging pause for thought. >It is difficult, however, to justify pulling a bid in place of a pass, >double or redouble as a mechanical error. Calls from different pockets >should rarely, if at all, be judged as inadvertent. One understandable >exception is placing the double card out followed shortly with a bid card >that skips the bidding. This appears clear that the double card was placed >inadvertently on the table. >########## > >The Tech files in the ACBLScore software expands on this a bit without >contradicting any of it. > >The reason I say you could be right is that Chris Patrias, representing >Gary Blaiss (ACBL CTD) at the Competition & Conventions committee meeting >(which I attend) in Toronto, said that ACBL TDs are ruling bidding box >bids about the same as for declarer's played card, as you describe. >However, Gary does not create regulations, the BoD does that, and I don't >remember seeing anything concerning this matter in the BoD minutes. > >I suppose "completely removed from the box" could be interpreted as being >placed on or near the table, but that seems a stretch. Perhaps these posts will help some of our friends overseas understand why we North Americans get so frustrated with the ACBL at times. The above represents a not atypical situation. Purported regulations that appear in the official publication of the ACBL, or on the official website of the ACBL, aren't treated as "official" at all. You follow them at your own risk, and may, as a result of doing so, find yourself penalized for violating the actual "official", but unpublished(*), regulations. I suspect that if our real regulations were all published, and our published regulations were all real, we'd see a significant reduction in the number of AC hearings at our tournaments. (*) These "unpublished" regulations are in fact almost always published. But they are published in things like "Duplicate Decisions" or ACBLScore, which are seen and read only by TDs, club managers and the like, while no, or, far more egregiously and all too frequently, contradictory "unofficial", regulations appear in the Bulletin or on the website, which are the ACBL's means of disseminating information to its "ordinary" players. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 08:43:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9NMg1020446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:42:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9NMftH20442 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:41:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.167.92] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15wA9g-0001p6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:36:17 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01c15c13$1e7b0fc0$9a9a7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022154231.00b0f440@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20011023164505.00ab8760@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 23:36:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > What's more, I think this is exactly the result we want. We get to > treat David B.'s declarer exactly as we would had he physically > detached the SA from dummy and moved it to the "played position" while > simultaneously saying "ace of clubs" out loud (stipulating, of course, > that his "pointing" was unambiguously directed at the SA). Or reached > over and simultaneously detached and moved both cards. Quite so. The point I was trying to make was that a declarer who called for "ace" when the last trick was a club, while at the same time pointing to the ace of spades, had in effect (per L46B3a) called for the ace of clubs while "otherwise designating" the ace of spades. Now, I don't have a quarrel with the notion that he has thereby played two cards at once, and that L58 should apply. What I do not like is either: the idea that he has played the ace of spades and not the ace of clubs, because such was his incontrovertible intention; or the idea that a defender who follows to a club can be subject to penalty. If L58B3 resolves the matter, and it appears to me that this is so, then let us use it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 16:40:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9O6cnY09553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:38:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9O6cgH09530 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([212.151.21.181]) by fep04-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20011024063254.ETK9052.fep04-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:32:54 +0200 Message-ID: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@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] Played Card Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:19:40 +0100 Organization: SBF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Some refer to law 58B3. Can you do that when a card (or two) are played from dummy? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 17:42:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9O7g9R20235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:42:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9O7g4H20224 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:42:04 +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 f9O7aPB18681 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000001c15c5e$271edda0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200110231426.KAA20072@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:29:47 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This has to be long, because it's a complicated subject. From: "Steve Willner" > > From: Ed Reppert > > It's dangerous to take *anything* on the ACBL website as gospel, but....> > > > I think the web site is up to date in this instance. The rule changed > some time ago, perhaps two or three years. Before the change, in the > ACBL the call was made when "laid on the table" or something similar, > but now the rule conforms to international practice. The rule did change in 1997, when the new Laws came out. But, as Ed has found, it's been changed again as of this year. > > The change may have been simultaneous with the change from "egregious > error" to "irrational, wild, or gambling" as the grounds for denying > redress to the NOS. I thought that change was from Miami, but 1996 > seems too long ago. Not all AC's seem to have gotten the word yet. The ACBL did not explicitly accept that WBFLC language (coming out of its Lille meeting), merely commenting: "For an offending pair, "damage" should be based solely on the score achieved whereas actions subsequent to the infraction may be relevant to the non-offenders." Whatever that means. I think it means you don't change the play (e.g., remove a revoke) when adjusting the OS score unless the play was possibly affected by the infraction. That is the current ACBL AC policy, Rich Colker tells me. Rich maintains that the ACBL's position is less lenient for the NOS than that of the WBF, which has been demonstrated by ACBL AC decisions in the past. However, it's my opinion that the difference is not caused by the language, but by the ignorance of those who do not know what "egregious" means. Also, the requirement to "play bridge" has been interpreted as "play bridge up to a level of their ability/experience," which the ACBL LC evidently did not intend. Here's what they wrote at the Fall 1991 NABC in Indianapolis, with Kaplan as chairman: > ...the Commission reaffirmed that in order to fully protect > his rights to petition for redress following an infraction by > an opponent, a player must "play bridge" at some reasonable > level: an egregious error may well be grounds to cause him to > be awarded the score actually achieved. Kaplan wrote in *The Bridge World* (July 1993): "When we think of mistakes that could cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors." That seems close to the WBF position, and tells me what the LC meant by "play bridge" and "egregious." Grattan once wrote; > > Edgar Kaplan came to the WBFLC saying the ACBL > > drafters wanted to do something to restore the > > level of the meaning of 'egregious' which was being > > set too low. So a debate began which led eventually > > to "irrational, wild or gambling" - desiring to remove > > the word 'egregious' from the vocabulary. Edgar in > > the beginning produced the phrase 'wild or gambling' > > - in the beginning before we heard of 'egregious' that > > is. This side of the water we stuck to 'wild or > > gambling' and did not use 'egregious' Wisely so, as its meaning is not widely understood. > > As far as I know, the ACBL does not (yet?) accept the Code of Practice, > although I'm not sure it would make any real difference in rulings. Not accepted, but the CoP merely reflected the words used by the WBFLC at Lille in regard to score adjustments. Those words ought to be accepted by the ACBL, if they wish to follow the WBF Constitution and By-Laws (but they don't). However, going by Kaplan's idea of what sort of actions are "egregious," the WBF and ACBL interpretations are not significantly different. When ACBL TDs or ACs apply a different standard, they are doing so on their own. > Another difference from international practice is that our definition > of "logical alternative" is much stricter than elsewhere, i.e. some > actions that are not LA's in most of the world are LA's here. Since the WBFLC has not given "logical alternative" an interpretation, other LCs are free to give it any interpretation they wish. It might be illuminating for us, Steve, if you would compare in detail the practices that you feel are very different, giving examples. I don't see much difference. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 24 22:04:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OC3fo20438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:03:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OC3ZH20434 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:03:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA23734; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:56:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA09013; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 13:57:43 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011025135622.00ab89b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:57:54 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re:: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011023164505.00ab8760@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011023100415.00a18490@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022154231.00b0f440@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:55 23/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >What's more, I think this is exactly the result we want. We get to treat >David B.'s declarer exactly as we would had he physically detached the SA >from dummy and moved it to the "played position" while simultaneously >saying "ace of clubs" out loud (stipulating, of course, that his >"pointing" was unambiguously directed at the SA). Or reached over and >simultaneously detached and moved both cards. AG : don't miss Eric Landau's next book, 'Bridge for octopusses'. Foreword by SJ 'Skid' Simon. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 00:57:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OEuIM28928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:56:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9OEuCH28924 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 00:56:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from plato.purplesoft.com (unknown [217.204.155.68]) by tvout.mail.uk.easynet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA82764526 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:50:30 +0100 (BST) Received: by PLATO with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:51:06 +0100 Message-ID: <8F6EF76A314FD311B36F00902798A8D7470B8C@PLATO> From: Martin Kane To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Off topic Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:51:05 +0100 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 does anyone know where I can look at the results of the Bermuda Bowl so far ? Purple Software Limited Purple House Corporation Street High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP13 6TQ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1494 750300 Fax: +44 (0) 1494 750301 http://www.purplesoftware.com This e-mail contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended for the recipient only. If an addressing error or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the sender immediately or contact postmaster@purplesoftware.com. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. The views expressed in this e mail are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Purple Software Limited. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 01:41:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OFfaB29274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:41:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OFfSH29245 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:41:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from jazz.meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_22672)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11603 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:35:42 GMT Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[BLML]_Off_topic?= To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:36:09 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.4 |June 8, 2000) at 24.10.2001 15:35:43 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9OFfVH29254 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ___________________________________________________ Martin Kane cc : Envoyé par : Objet : [BLML] Off topic owner-bridge-laws@rgb. anu.edu.au 24/10/01 16:51 does anyone know where I can look at the results of the Bermuda Bowl so far? <<< you could try: http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Paris.01/Paris.htm have a good look jp rocafort __________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr Purple Software Limited Purple House Corporation Street High Wycombe Buckinghamshire HP13 6TQ United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1494 750300 Fax: +44 (0) 1494 750301 http://www.purplesoftware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 02:02:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OG1w503391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:01:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9OG1qH03380 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:01:53 +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 f9OFtOv01336; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:55:24 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011024105510.00a22b30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:56:56 -0500 To: Hans-Olof =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hall=E9n?= From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@swipnet.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:19 AM 10/24/01 +0100, you wrote: >Some refer to law 58B3. Can you do that when a card (or two) are played from >dummy? Since dummy's cards are visible cards played by declarer, I see no reason why the law doesn't apply to them exactly as it does to cards from declarer's hand. 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 Oct 25 03:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OH2VS05768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:02:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OH2NH05764 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:02:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.5.65] (helo=[217.35.5.65]) by carbon.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15wRKc-0003oz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:56:42 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:56:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 5:36 pm +0100 22/10/01, Robin Barker wrote: >As part of the fun at Bournemouth we had to decide if a number of >TO doubles were alertable. > >The relevant part of the (EBU) regulations is that TO doubles of >natural suit bids below 3NT are not alertable (unless partner >has bid/doubled/redoubled). > >So what about (all doubles TO): > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-P-X ? > >2S(S+m)-P-3C(P/C)-P-3D-X ? > >Only two of these (third and fifth actually happened). >What most interests me is I feel there perhaps should be a difference >between the first and second (or between fourth and fifth). > >Robin I suspect this relates in part to an auction I was involved in, although our auction was not exactly one given above. I had already considered asking BLML members' opinions about it before seeing your post, though from a rather different perspective. Our complete auction was 2D(multi)-X -2H(P/C) -P 2S -X -P -3H P -3S -P -4H All Pass 2D, 2H and 3S were alerted, neither Double was. In common with all the other players at the table, I believed that this lack of alert indicated that the second double was for penalties. The director (after consultation) decided that the unalerted meaning of the second double was that it was for takeout. My partner was the doubler, and I believed (subsequently implicitly supported by our CC) that our agreement is that the second double was for penalties. However this is a sequence that has never come up before in our partnership, and I wasn't certain what my partner would have for his call, so I decided that the safest action was to bid my five-card heart suit with my weak hand. It might well have been wrong, but was unlikely to be as disastrous as passing them out in a doubled game at IMPs might have been. After the auction I gave all this information to the opponents when questioned, but when my partner put down a typical takeout-double type hand as dummy,the opponents felt they had been damaged. They were not swayed by my insisting that he had merely misbid, but that I had given the correct explanation. Yet once the director had decided that the unalerted meaning of the double was "takeout", they were satisfied with the outcome - precisely at the point where I thought they had a legitimate grievance which, much to their amusement, I told them. So the point seemed to me to be one of misbid vs misexplanation. If I have given a correct explanation (ie if my lack of alert identified the double as penalties and that is our agreement) yet my partner has misbid and I have pulled the double (without there being any suggestion of my having used UI to come to this decision), do my opponents have any recourse? The Laws seem to me to be very clear that they don't, yet both my opponents and the director seemed to take the opposite view. Note that if we had actually had the auction given above - 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-2S-X - there would have been no problem. I would have known that the double was for takeout and would not have alerted it. My opponents would also have assumed it was for takeout and there would have been no director call. -- Gordon Rainsford London 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 Oct 25 03:22:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OHMIw05813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:22:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OHMDH05809 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:22:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.72]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLQ0AD00.C2E for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:23:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-185.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.185]) by bwmam02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8317/6494628); 25 Oct 2001 03:16:29 Message-ID: <000c01c15caf$6cc88f80$b9dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Off topic Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:15:04 +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 Martin Kane wrote: >does anyone know where I can look at the results of >the Bermuda Bowl so far ? General Results Page: http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Paris.01/Results.htm (then click on Team Name for a team's summary, then on opponent's name for line-ups) Bermuda Bowl News (no online Vugraph at this stage) www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblNEWS/ (RHS = info about Vugraph) or join e-bridge (linked to www.abf.com.au) for a week for free, for info - but no Vugraph until Semi-Finals probably. Bulletins (three so far: 1, 14 and 18 pages long respectively): http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Paris.01/Bulletins.htm Information and Schedule: http://www.bridge.gr/tourn/Paris.01/Information.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 03:28:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OHS3b05832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:28:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9OHRwH05828 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:27:58 +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 f9OHMJw21219 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005201c15cb0$58cfd6e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20011023165839.00affca0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:12:24 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > Perhaps these posts will help some of our friends overseas understand > why we North Americans get so frustrated with the ACBL at times. The > above represents a not atypical situation. Purported regulations that > appear in the official publication of the ACBL, or on the official > website of the ACBL, aren't treated as "official" at all. You follow > them at your own risk, and may, as a result of doing so, find yourself > penalized for violating the actual "official", but unpublished(*), > regulations. The only reliable source for the regulations themselves are the minutes of BoD meetings, which are (after a while) published on the ACBL website. That's a cumbersome way to promulgate them. The implementing instructions for applying regulations by TDs are supposed to be published in the Tech files, but those are not kept up to date. In general they are not published elsewhere, so players have no way of knowing what instructions have been given to TDs about implementing Laws and regulations. There is a bulletin board for ACBL TDs that provides such instructions, but you need a password to read it. New regulations are often published in *The Bridge Bulletin*, but not consistently, and they are often not even shown on the ACBL website. > > I suspect that if our real regulations were all published, and our > published regulations were all real, we'd see a significant reduction > in the number of AC hearings at our tournaments. Okay, Ed Reppert, here's a job you would be good at. Gather up all the latest ACBL regulations and LC interpretations, organize them, and put them on your website. Include a link to David Stevenson's website, where my reformatted version of the ACBL Alert Procedure (soon to be updated) resides. Your working materials will be the ACBL website, minutes of the BoD, the Tech files in ACBLScore, *Duplicate Decisions*, past issues of the Bulletin, and minutes of the ACBLLC. Remember that nothing published in the Bulletin is official unless it quotes the BoD or ACBLLC minutes. All else is personal opinion, which must be documented separately and marked as unofficial. The Bulletin is the house organ of the ACBL, but that doesn't make everything in it "official." Include a section for WBFLC minutes, marking items that are not accepted by the ACBL. Ignore the CoP, this is for ACBL-land only. Inform people that the ACBL AC casebooks are published in the Members Only section of the ACBL website, although it takes a long time for a casebook to get included. If you (or anyone else) accept this task, I'll be glad to help. > > (*) These "unpublished" regulations are in fact almost always > published. But they are published in things like "Duplicate Decisions" > or ACBLScore, which are seen and read only by TDs, club managers and > the like, while no, or, far more egregiously and all too frequently, > contradictory "unofficial", regulations appear in the Bulletin or on > the website, which are the ACBL's means of disseminating information to > its "ordinary" players. 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 Oct 25 04:04:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OI3Te05856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:03:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9OI3OH05852 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:03:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by GARFIELD with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:54:50 +0100 Message-ID: <21E08D88F9EAD011B0DB006097BE45463F93AE@GARFIELD> From: anna@ecats.co.uk To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] The World Championships in Paris Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:54:49 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For those of you interested in following the results, getting bulletins, wanting to know about Vu-Graph etc, I thought the links below might be helpful: Results and bulletins can all be found at the official WBF site www.bridge.gr We are informed that there will be Vu-Graph coverage from the semi finals (and possibly the quarter finals) onwards at www.e-bridgemaster.com and additional information will also be found there free of charge There is also http://www.ffbridge.asso.fr where every day they will keep you updated with flash backs about players, the tournament and all the results. >From there you can follow the final live from November 1st - 3rd. It is mainly in French, but with live video and is well worth a visit! All the best Anna www.ecatsbridge.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 04:09:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OI9a405874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:09:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OI9VH05870 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 04:09:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA08957 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA27152 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:03:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110241803.OAA27152@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Gordon Rainsford > So the point seemed to me to be one of misbid vs misexplanation. If I > have given a correct explanation (ie if my lack of alert identified > the double as penalties and that is our agreement) yet my partner has > misbid and I have pulled the double (without there being any > suggestion of my having used UI to come to this decision), do my > opponents have any recourse? If the facts are as above, in principle there is no recourse. In practice, you may be ruled against (MI or conceivably UI) unless you have clear evidence that your explanation was correct. The "coincidence" between your partner's having a hand that differs from your explanation and your action catering to the hand he holds and not the hand you explained may be hard to overcome. By the way, I'm surprised that there is any doubt that the non-alerted meaning of the double is takeout. Surely 2S is a natural bid under the EBU definition, and doubler's partner has not shown strength. I am not at all sure takeout is the expected meaning, mind you, especially without knowing the meaning of the first double, but the EBU alert rules seem pretty clear in this situation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 05:33:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OJWdO09041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:32:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OJWWH09037 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 05:32:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.150.174] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15wTfq-0005KS-00; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:26:46 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c15cc1$cf1e5680$ae967ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: Cc: "Max Bavin" , "David Stevenson \(EBU\)" References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:25:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon wrote: > I suspect this relates in part to an auction I was involved in, > although our auction was not exactly one given above. I had already > considered asking BLML members' opinions about it before seeing your > post, though from a rather different perspective. > > Our complete auction was > > 2D(multi)-X -2H(P/C) -P > 2S -X -P -3H > P -3S -P -4H > All Pass > > 2D, 2H and 3S were alerted, neither Double was. Curious. One wonders what the unalerted meaning of a double of a Multi might be. As far as I understand the regulations, it is not to be alerted if and only if it is a penalty double of diamonds, the relevant section being: 5.3.1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes: (d) a double if it is: (i) a take out double of a suit bid naturally at the one, two or three level when your partner has not had a chance to call or has passed without indicating values. (ii) a penalty double otherwise; this includes the double of a suit bid other than naturally to show you hold it. Unless, therefore, the double of two diamonds was a penalty double of diamonds, it required an alert. This I would expect to be more or less common knowledge; if you double a Multi to show (as is commonly played) either a weak no trump type or some very strong hand, this cannot be considered "natural". > In common with all > the other players at the table, I believed that this lack of alert > indicated that the second double was for penalties. Per the same section, the unalerted meaning of the second double is that it is for takeout, provided that no value-showing meaning attaches to the pass of 2H. Of course, if the auction had been: 2D X 2H Pass Pass X the unalerted meaning of that is penalty, since 2H has not been bid naturally. This regulation is of course bonkers, but as the current chair of the committee responsible for it, you can scarcely expect me to point that out. An argument has been adduced that what is being doubled is not an unnatural 2H, but a natural pass thereof. While I have some sympathy with this view, it appears to me implicitly to sanction an auction such as: Pass* X *strong which may give rise to certain difficulties. > The director > (after consultation) decided that the unalerted meaning of the second > double was that it was for takeout. Well done, that man. > My partner was the doubler, and I believed (subsequently implicitly > supported by our CC) that our agreement is that the second double was > for penalties. One vaguely wonders of what this "implicit support" might consist. I have heard of "support doubles", of course, but not of "implicitly supported penalty doubles". > However this is a sequence that has never come up > before in our partnership, I believe you. But that is what they all say. > and I wasn't certain what my partner would > have for his call, If you believe that a double of two spades is for penalties, one might tentatively conclude that this establishes (with relative certainty) that your partner will have a penalty double of a weak 2S opening. After all, how would the poor fellow be supposed to proceed should he accidentally be dealt such a hand? > so I decided that the safest action was to bid my > five-card heart suit with my weak hand. Why would that be "safe"? To remove a penalty double to a five-card suit cannot remotely be described as a "safe" action; the notion is that partner does not expect you to have anything (especially since you could have bid over 2H but have not), yet he is still prepared to double 2S for penalty. To bid in such a fashion strongly implies that you are in serious doubt as to your side's methods - that is fair enough, but there is an extent to which you are obliged to communicate the essence of the situation to the opponents. > It might well have been > wrong, but was unlikely to be as disastrous as passing them out in a > doubled game at IMPs might have been. Au contraire - exchanging a penalty after which partner appears avidly to be seeking for a minus score is (should the penalty be in the region of 500 or so) as serious as, say, allowing a non-vulnerable game to make. You and I may have different ideas of what constitutes a "disaster", but this one will do until a disaster comes along. > After the auction I gave all this information to the opponents when > questioned, but when my partner put down a typical takeout-double > type hand as dummy,the opponents felt they had been damaged. I doubt that. What they may have felt was that you had failed sufficiently to damage yourselves, while misinforming them in the meantime. > They > were not swayed by my insisting that he had merely misbid, but that I > had given the correct explanation. I am not surprised. I would not have been swayed either. I have written in a ruling on a different case the following words: "If a player makes a takeout double that gets taken out, there is some evidence that this is in fact the partnership method, therefore there has been misinformation." by which I would stand in the case under discussion, failing very strong evidence that such was not the state of affairs. Of course, I was not in Bournemouth, so cannot judge the extent to which your "implicit support" or your eloquence might have influenced me. > Yet once the director had decided > that the unalerted meaning of the double was "takeout", they were > satisfied with the outcome - precisely at the point where I thought > they had a legitimate grievance which, much to their amusement, I > told them. Oh, well. As long as it did not all end in tears before bedtime. > So the point seemed to me to be one of misbid vs misexplanation. If I > have given a correct explanation (ie if my lack of alert identified > the double as penalties and that is our agreement) yet my partner has > misbid and I have pulled the double (without there being any > suggestion of my having used UI to come to this decision), do my > opponents have any recourse? No, if that is indeed the case. But if the opponents might have acted differently (for example, by competing to 3S over 3H), then you must show beyond reasonable doubt that the state of affairs is as you describe it. > The Laws seem to me to be very clear > that they don't, yet both my opponents and the director seemed to > take the opposite view. Much confusion exists in this area. The opponents might have been aggrieved that you had successfully judged to remove a "penalty" double, but you are of course permitted to do so absent UI suggesting that partner has forgotten the methods. But it is not sufficient for them to argue that your side has failed to damage itself as badly as it might have done; rather, it is for them to argue that your side has in fact misinformed them, and caused direct damage thereby. I must say (indeed, it may be clear from my remarks above) that I have very little inclination to accept an argument of this kind: "I knew double was for penalty, but pulled it anyway" when there is other than the strongest evidence to support the contention that double was indeed for penalty - this especially when the removal is to a five-card suit and the double was clearly intended as takeout. But you might have convinced me had I been there at the time. What is clear, however, is that just about everyone from you and the opponents to your partner and the director were not so much barking up the wrong tree as in altogether the wrong forest. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 06:14:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OKEMG14685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:14:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OKEDH14663 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:14:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15wUKD-000B3k-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:08:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:37:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@swipnet.se> In-Reply-To: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@swipnet.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9OKEGH14667 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hans-Olof Hallén writes >Some refer to law 58B3. Can you do that when a card (or two) are played from >dummy? I think the question is whether L58B applies to dummy at all. If you are able to play two cards from dummy simultaneously in the way meant by L58B then L58B will certainly apply. Personally I do not think it is possible that L58B can apply. However, part of my reason involves how a card is played from dummy - and you all know what will happen if I state my opinion on that! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Lawspage recently considerably updated: 27 new articles out of the 88 Also 11 new articles on my Bridgepage Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 06:14:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OKEWR14717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:14:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OKEDH14656 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:14:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15wUKD-000BI1-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:08:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:48:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let me see. We had a situation which has led to a lot of argument, some about what the Law is, some about what the Law should be. I am not going to worry about what it should be. There have been some posts that have assumed they know what the facts are, most of them actually, but not necessarily agreeing on the facts! There have also been some posts on related but different situations. One of the earlier posts by Ton referred to finding out the facts but few people have worried about this. Now, as I suppose I bore you all by saying, I am trying to run a game here, and I think this applies to the vast majority of you. There are one or two who have different agendas, and while on a mailing-list there is no reason why you should not have your own agenda, please accept that this post is not aimed at you, whether your agenda is to discuss the nuances of the English language, criticise the law-makers, win points for being cleverer than other posts, or whatever. This post is for those who want to see the game well run. Let me go back to the start. I cannot remember for sure, and the post is long since expired, so from memory it was something like declarer playing a club: next trick he called for "ace" and pointed at the ace of spades. His RHO played a club assuming the club ace was played. Now let us consider what actually happened. Marv says that you cannot tell what card is pointed to unless you are dummy, and often not even then. That does not accord with my experience at the bridge table, which is that if a player points clearly enough everyone knows to what card he is pointing. RHO clearly was not watching the dummy, but the first thing the TD should do is to establish the facts. What does LHO think? Dummy? Was a card clearly pointed to? The original poster, Wayne **, said a card was pointed to. I think that we should assume that a TD attempting to rule here has made a determination that this was so. If he made a different determination, then the TD has a different problem. Let us stick with this one. Furthermore, it seems to be assumed throughout that there was a club ace in the dummy at that time. Let us assume that: again, I feel the problem is different if there was no club ace. Also, it has been asked what happens if someone asks for the "club ace" and points at the spade ace. I do not believe that is what happened here, and I think we should stick with solving this case first. {** I thought it was Liz, but subsequent posters have assured us it was Wayne.} How about timing? Did the player point at the spade ace as he said "ace"? Or after [or even before]? I am not sure whether it makes much difference, but let us assume that it was at the same time. I think we would have heard if it had been later. Again, the TD should make a determination of the facts, and let us assume he has determined that the pointing and the saying "ace" were together. The first problem is what Law applies initially, ie to the play of the card from dummy. L46A tells us the proper form for calling for a card from dummy, and this was not followed. So which Law applies? My first instinct is that L46B applies. There was an incomplete call of the card to be played, and L46B refers to this, so surely it applies? However, Grattan produced a different idea. He points out that L45C4A is the relevant Law, and says that pointing to a card designates it. I think it is true that it is designated thus, so L45C4A appears to apply. Now, what neither Grattan, nor the people who supported L46B as the way to go, did was to say why one applies rather than the other. So let us dig a little deeper. First I read the EBL Commentary and Duplicate Decisions, but neither has anything relevant **. {** Actually, two gems appeared. First, that Grattan has pre-empted my view as to whether a card played from dummy includes the movement of the card: he is already on print as saying it is not so. Second, that Duplicate Decisions does include references to pointing as a method of playing cards from dummy, suggesting that TDs recognise the validity of this.} Does it matter which applies? Let us see whether they reach the same conclusion, because if there is no difference we do not need to worry which applies. Suppose we use L46B: L46B3A says that "ace" means the club ace, *but* the first bit of L46B says "... the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible):". Since declarer was pointing at the spade ace, I do believe that the TD will rule that declarer's intention is incontrovertibly to play the spade ace, and thus per L46B the spade ace is the card called for from dummy. So the spade ace is played per L45B. Alternatively, suppose we use L45C4A: now the pointing at the spade ace designated that card, and this says it must be played, so it is played per L45B. Same thing, surely? Ok, let us not decide between the two approaches, since they reach the same conclusion. Now, we have not used L45C4B in either case, because there was no *correction of an inadvertent designation*. So you cannot let RHO take his club back under L45C4B. Is there any other way we can let him take it back? Try L47, yes? He is not withdrawing it to comply with a penalty [L47A]: to change an inadvertent designation [L47C]: because of misinformation [L47E]. His opponent did not *change* his play so L47D does not apply. How about L47B? Well, yes, he has to correct his revoke, so L47B would apply, but this is not retraction without penalty, which was the question raised. I can see no way in Law that RHO can withdraw his card without penalty. In my view, the spade ace was played from the dummy, given our determination of facts, and the club thereafter is a revoke and treated as such. ---------- It has been suggested that declarer might have done this intentionally to try to catch an opponent out. Again, presumptions do not really help us deciding how to rule, but there is no doubt that the TD should try to find out. Let us suppose that his determination is such that he thinks declarer did try it on: noticing that RHO was not attending he decided to hit him with the Wayne Burrows coup, deliberately saying "ace" and pointing at the spade ace. Good one! No, it is not. While we do allow incomplete designations without penalty, whether we should or not, it is an irregularity, and in this case it appears that declarer knew it might benefit his side. The hand is played out, but the score is then adjusted to remove the revoke penalty under L72B1. ---------- Another thing that has been discussed is that RHO may have played a club "because he knows the Laws" and thus he knows that the "ace" referred to the club ace. I am unconvinced that there is any reason to give RHO the benefit of anything for knowing part of the Law but not all the Law, and if he really knows L46B he knows the "incontrovertible" part. Opinions differ sharply as to whether we should have sympathy for RHO. I have very little, since he violated L74B1. But whether you have any, you cannot let him take his club back, since the Law does not permit it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 06:49:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OKnV821280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OKnLH21263 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.150.174] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15wUsF-0005QR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:43:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003c01c15ccc$8cfd9f80$ae967ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@swipnet.se> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:43:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: Hans-Olof Hallén writes >Some refer to law 58B3. Can you do that when a card (or two) are played from >dummy? >I think the question is whether L58B applies to dummy at all. If you are able to play two cards from dummy simultaneously in the way meant by L58B then L58B will certainly apply. Once again, I am tempted to wonder why it is that one considers what the laws "mean" as opposed to what they say. The laws mean what they say; they do not mean anything else, nor is the intent of the lawmakers to be guessed at or even taken into account. As Grattan used to quote: When Senators have had their sport And sealed the Law by vote, It little matters what they thought - We hang for what they wrote. It may very well be that L58 was crafted only to address the position that occurs when a non-dummy detaches, through clumsiness, more than one card from his own hand and leads or plays them to the current trick. But nowhere in L58 is there any reference to a non-dummy; rather, the words are: If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously... Well, declarer plays dummy's cards (L41D, L45B. L46A), and if he contrives to play two or more of them simultaneously, then L58 appears to me clearly to apply. Suppose, for example, that a declarer incapable of speech and therefore compelled to play cards from dummy by picking them up accidentally grabs both the ace of spades and the card below it, a small spade. Should he not be protected (or possibly hurt) by L58 in exactly the same way as a declarer who leads from his hand both the ace and a small spade? >Personally I do not think it is possible that L58B can apply. However, part of my reason involves how a card is played from dummy - and you all know what will happen if I state my opinion on that! It has already happened. There is, as you suggest, little point in its happening again. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 06:49:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OKnSp21275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OKnGH21248 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15wUs8-00004y-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:40:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110241803.OAA27152@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110241803.OAA27152@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >By the way, I'm surprised that there is any doubt that the non-alerted >meaning of the double is takeout. Surely 2S is a natural bid under the >EBU definition, and doubler's partner has not shown strength. I am not >at all sure takeout is the expected meaning, mind you, especially >without knowing the meaning of the first double, but the EBU alert >rules seem pretty clear in this situation. There is evidence that the EBU's alert rules divide into two types, namely: [a] alerting of doubles, no-one understands them, crazy [b] other alerts, people in England reasonably happy with them However, one of the advantages of our rules for alerting doubles is that they are self-consistent rules with a simple basis. In complex situations this means that alerting and expectation may be totally out of line to preserve simplicity. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 06:49:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OKnTZ21274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9OKnHH21249 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 06:49:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 15wUs8-00004x-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:43:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:30:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 25B - what will become of it? [was: Played Card] References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011022085948.00abe3a0@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b24$31bb6700$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20011023165839.00affca0@127.0.0.1> <005201c15cb0$58cfd6e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005201c15cb0$58cfd6e0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >Okay, Ed Reppert, here's a job you would be good at. Gather up all the >latest ACBL regulations and LC interpretations, organize them, and put >them on your website. Include a link to David Stevenson's website, where >my reformatted version of the ACBL Alert Procedure (soon to be updated) >resides. Alternatively, I am happy to put such things on my Lawspage direct. > Your working materials will be the ACBL website, minutes of the >BoD, the Tech files in ACBLScore, *Duplicate Decisions*, past issues of >the Bulletin, and minutes of the ACBLLC. Remember that nothing published >in the Bulletin is official unless it quotes the BoD or ACBLLC minutes. >All else is personal opinion, which must be documented separately and >marked as unofficial. The Bulletin is the house organ of the ACBL, but >that doesn't make everything in it "official." > >Include a section for WBFLC minutes, marking items that are not accepted >by the ACBL. Ignore the CoP, this is for ACBL-land only. Inform people >that the ACBL AC casebooks are published in the Members Only section of >the ACBL website, although it takes a long time for a casebook to get >included. > >If you (or anyone else) accept this task, I'll be glad to help. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 08:01:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OM18T28646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:01:08 +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 f9OM12H28625 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:01:02 +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 RAA22774 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:55:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA27406 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:55:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110242155.RAA27406@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" Thanks for the wonderfully humorous, as well as clear and logical, message. I do have one question: > But if the opponents might have acted > differently (for example, by competing to 3S over 3H), then you must > show beyond reasonable doubt that the state of affairs is as you > describe it. [i.e., misbid and not mis-explanation] Do we really require "beyond reasonable doubt?" I would have thought a lesser standard to be enough. Before the 1997 Laws revision, there was a suggestion that the LC qualify "evidence to the contrary" in the L75D2 footnote with words such as "clear and convincing." They chose not to change the language. As a practical matter, AC decisions seem to be using mere "preponderance of the evidence," or at least that is my (perhaps inaccurate) impression. What standard of evidence should we use? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 08:11:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9OMB1200326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:11:01 +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 f9OMAtH00304 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:10:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA23218 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA27426 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:05:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110242205.SAA27426@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > One of the earlier posts by Ton referred to finding out the facts but > few people have worried about this. One of my messages asked for practical advice on how the TD should find out the facts. John suggested having the players act out the sequence of events, but I don't recall any other answer. > However, Grattan produced a different idea. He points out that L45C4A > is the relevant Law, and says that pointing to a card designates it. I > think it is true that it is designated thus, so L45C4A appears to apply. I don't see how 45C4a helps us with "which card?" It tells us that once we have determined which card declarer designated, that card and no other must be played, but it seems to me we have to look at L46 to tell us which card was designated. As David says, though, there is no practical difference. > He is not withdrawing it to comply with a penalty [L47A]: to change an > inadvertent designation [L47C]: because of misinformation [L47E]. I still fail to see why you say we cannot use L47E2a. We use the analogous L21B1 to allow a change of call after a L25A correction. Why is this situation different? > No, it is not. While we do allow incomplete designations without > penalty, whether we should or not, it is an irregularity, More than that, it's an infraction. Again probably no practical difference. > Opinions differ sharply as to whether we should have sympathy for RHO. > I have very little, since he violated L74B1. You mention the TD determining the facts: what facts suggest _insufficient_ attention on RHO's part? Perhaps he was concentrating on counting the hand. What rule says he has to watch for declarer's gestures? I am still interested to know whether the ruling would be different depending on what RHO was thinking about or looking at. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 11:15:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P1D5U05857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:13:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P1D0H05853 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:13:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9P16HF12063; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:06:18 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110241803.OAA27152@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200110241803.OAA27152@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:03:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:03 PM -0400 10/24/01, Steve Willner wrote: >By the way, I'm surprised that there is any doubt that the non-alerted >meaning of the double is takeout. I am not at all sure that we should consider that a call necessarily has different meanings depending on whether it's alerted. The meaning of a call is whatever the partnership making that call has agreed it should be (or, presumably, if they have not agreed, whatever "general bridge knowledge" says it is). The alert is a separate thing, a warning that the meaning is (or may be) different from that which opponents may expect. We may, in some cases, *assume* that if a double is not alerted, it is for takeout, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily correct. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9dlyr2UW3au93vOEQIKdwCgr/1HLC6x8xX8KTkIfj5+7/RxKgYAn3wn LhMoFMRm1vKgPpUEt1eZkfOx =+snS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 11:29:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P1S9B05873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:28:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P1S4H05869 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:28:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011025012218.DPNW2467.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:22:18 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011024212046.007feea0@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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:20:46 -0400 To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <002101c15b80$664abc80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:56 PM 10/22/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Eric Landau" > >> Marvin wrote: >> >> >From: "Robin Barker" >> > >> > > So what about (all doubles TO): >> > >> > > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? >> > >> >2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable >> > >> > > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? >> > >> >Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable >> >> [and more, similarly] >> >> I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm >> wrong then it's not natural. > >> It must, however, be whichever it is when >> one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a >> natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. > >I should have written "in effect has become a natural bid," I suppose. The >opponents have shown four or more cards in hearts now, making any call that >establishes that fact (the pass) the vehicle for making any heart bid, >future or previous, *in effect* now a "natural" bid. A double of hearts at >this point would be assumed takeout, so no Alert of the double. What is being doubled here is the pass, showing a natural suit. Here's a clearer example. 1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 11:53:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P1rB205890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:53:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P1r5H05886 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:53:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9P1kIF08727; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:46:19 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:44:08 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:48 PM +0100 10/24/01, David Stevenson wrote: > Let me see. We had a situation which has led to a lot of argument, >some about what the Law is, some about what the Law should be. I am not >going to worry about what it should be. Me either. :-) [snip] > Let me go back to the start. I cannot remember for sure, and the post >is long since expired, so from memory it was something like declarer >playing a club: next trick he called for "ace" and pointed at the ace of >spades. His RHO played a club assuming the club ace was played. Close enough. At 10:34 AM +1200 10/12/01, wrote: >The following sequence of events occured: > >Declarer plays a club to the table and wins on table; > >Declarer calls for 'ace'; > >There are two aces on table the ace of clubs and the ace of trumps; > >Declarer intended and pointed to the ace of trumps; > >Dummy played the ace of trumps; > >rho followed with a club. > >The preamble to L46B seems to apply in that declarer's intention was >incontrovertible. > Now let us consider what actually happened. Marv says that you cannot >tell what card is pointed to unless you are dummy, and often not even >then. That does not accord with my experience at the bridge table, >which is that if a player points clearly enough everyone knows to what >card he is pointing. RHO clearly was not watching the dummy, but the >first thing the TD should do is to establish the facts. What does LHO >think? Dummy? Was a card clearly pointed to? > > The original poster, Wayne **, said a card was pointed to. I think >that we should assume that a TD attempting to rule here has made a >determination that this was so. If he made a different determination, >then the TD has a different problem. Let us stick with this one. Well, it *was* Liz, and if she's posted anything else to this thread, I missed it. :-) The last line excerpted from her post, above, seems to indicate that declarer *did* clearly pointed to the card. >Furthermore, it seems to be assumed throughout that there was a club ace >in the dummy at that time. Let us assume that: again, I feel the >problem is different if there was no club ace. Also, it has been asked >what happens if someone asks for the "club ace" and points at the spade >ace. I do not believe that is what happened here, and I think we should >stick with solving this case first. There was a club ace. [snip] > How about timing? Did the player point at the spade ace as he said >"ace"? Or after [or even before]? I am not sure whether it makes much >difference, but let us assume that it was at the same time. I think we >would have heard if it had been later. Again, the TD should make a >determination of the facts, and let us assume he has determined that the >pointing and the saying "ace" were together. Okay. Though it seems to me that by what Liz posted, that's unclear. > The first problem is what Law applies initially, ie to the play of the >card from dummy. L46A tells us the proper form for calling for a card >from dummy, and this was not followed. So which Law applies? > > My first instinct is that L46B applies. There was an incomplete call >of the card to be played, and L46B refers to this, so surely it applies? > > However, Grattan produced a different idea. He points out that L45C4A >is the relevant Law, and says that pointing to a card designates it. I >think it is true that it is designated thus, so L45C4A appears to apply. [snip] > Does it matter which applies? Let us see whether they reach the same >conclusion, because if there is no difference we do not need to worry >which applies. [snip] > Ok, let us not decide between the >two approaches, since they reach the same conclusion. Works for me. [snip] > Opinions differ sharply as to whether we should have sympathy for RHO. >I have very little, since he violated L74B1. But whether you have any, >you cannot let him take his club back, since the Law does not permit it. Hm. I said I was going to go back and review the entire thread. It's a very long thread, and I haven't done that yet. Perhaps now I don't have to. :-) There is one thing still unclear to me, though. Law 45C4(a) speaks to a player "naming or otherwise designating" a card he *proposes* to play. So if declarer, at a time when a card is to be played from dummy, points at a card in dummy, is that card played, or is he simply *proposing* to play it? Does it matter? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9dvK72UW3au93vOEQJzKACfXpTq7E27pSzYQSr7+hti8qsKA60AoOzy 3xUDKFAslpXC3JaW4rvjrsOo =CIt2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 12:08:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P27wS05909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:07:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9P27qH05905 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:07:53 +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 MAA19945 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:11:17 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:48:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] A doubly irrational claim To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:54:50 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 25/10/2001 11:54:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Contract: 2H by West, imps North 2 --- --- J87 West Dummy J10 8 Q --- --- --- 9 A105 South (me) K95 --- --- 6 North's opening lead had been a low club to my queen and West's king. In the four card ending, the lead was in dummy. Declarer needed three out of the four remaining tricks to make 2H. However, West claimed all four tricks, having forgotten the spade king was outstanding. The TD ruled one off, on this line: 1. Spade, ducked to the jack 2. Heart queen, club six discard 3. Spade ten *cashed* If West played that way, would it be: a) careless or inferior? b) irrational for some but not others? c) always irrational? Furthermore, if West had not claimed, it would have been irrational for me to have ducked my spade king - declarer then gets an overtrick by taking the 67%+ club finesse. Can a future irrational but successful NOS play be included in a TD's evaluation of an OS incorrect claim? 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 Oct 25 12:40:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P2di405928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:39:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P2dYH05924 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:39:36 +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 CAA08293 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:33:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 03:23:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > snip extremely well argued case. > > I can see no way in Law that RHO can withdraw his card without >penalty. In my view, the spade ace was played from the dummy, given our >determination of facts, and the club thereafter is a revoke and treated >as such. > > ---------- > > It has been suggested that declarer might have done this intentionally >to try to catch an opponent out. Again, presumptions do not really help >us deciding how to rule, but there is no doubt that the TD should try to >find out. Let us suppose that his determination is such that he thinks >declarer did try it on: noticing that RHO was not attending he decided >to hit him with the Wayne Burrows coup, deliberately saying "ace" and >pointing at the spade ace. Good one! > > No, it is not. While we do allow incomplete designations without >penalty, whether we should or not, it is an irregularity, and in this >case it appears that declarer knew it might benefit his side. The hand >is played out, but the score is then adjusted to remove the revoke >penalty under L72B1. I have always wanted to rule under L72b1 because I believe declarer could have known his action might cause damage. In determining whether to adjust under 72b1 I do not have to prove intent. I am convinced by David's arguments about the C7 being played, and would therefore restore the equity in the hand at the end of play. cheers john > > ---------- > > Another thing that has been discussed is that RHO may have played a >club "because he knows the Laws" and thus he knows that the "ace" >referred to the club ace. I am unconvinced that there is any reason to >give RHO the benefit of anything for knowing part of the Law but not all >the Law, and if he really knows L46B he knows the "incontrovertible" >part. Many players use the short form designations, knowing that they are interpreted unambiguously. They almost certainly don't know why they work, and don't know the laws behind them. Most London players do, from my own personal knowledge. It's because of this I am so sympathetic to the defender. > > Opinions differ sharply as to whether we should have sympathy for RHO. >I have very little, since he violated L74B1. But whether you have any, >you cannot let him take his club back, since the Law does not permit it. > I'm convinced by this. I'll adjust at the end. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 12:45:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P2j7W05946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:45:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.149]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P2j2H05942 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:45:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011025023913.EJRS17681.femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:39:13 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011024223553.008013a0@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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:35:53 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] A doubly irrational claim In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:54 AM 10/25/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Furthermore, if West had not claimed, >it would have been irrational for me >to have ducked my spade king - declarer >then gets an overtrick by taking the >67%+ club finesse. > >Can a future irrational but successful >NOS play be included in a TD's evaluation >of an OS incorrect claim? This issue has come up on BLML before; I think there was a WBF Laws Committee note that even an irrational play by the NOS can be considered as a refutation of a claim. >Best wishes > >Richard > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 13:17:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P3GbM05981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:16:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P3GWH05977 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:16:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9P37vF29933; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:07:58 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:59:10 -0400 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I'm convinced by this. I'll adjust at the end. cheers john Surely only if the forced play of the C7 damaged the defense? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9eCUr2UW3au93vOEQIMOwCg62Lr7qDTerq19fIDtj96ViTNb3wAoNpC 3SpwSSkVHBtQhgS99N7WI0LL =o0Ph -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 17:33:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9P7W5J24575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:32:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep03-svc.swip.net (fep03.swip.net [130.244.199.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9P7VxH24571 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:32:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([212.151.30.209]) by fep03-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20011025072613.EWBC20967.fep03-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se> for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:26:13 +0200 Message-ID: <003b01c15d24$7823c320$d11e97d4@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] Played Card Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:12:53 +0100 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 What bothers me is that all dummy´s cards are visible and L58B3 talks about withdrawing a visible card, I am in doubt that this law applies. Cheers Hans-Olof Hallén -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 21:23:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PBMQK01040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PBMGH01032 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:22:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15wiUt-000Pt5-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:16:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:30:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <200110242205.SAA27426@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200110242205.SAA27426@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> One of the earlier posts by Ton referred to finding out the facts but >> few people have worried about this. > >One of my messages asked for practical advice on how the TD should >find out the facts. John suggested having the players act out the >sequence of events, but I don't recall any other answer. Most finding out of facts is done by asking the four players individually what happened and then assessing the replies. >> However, Grattan produced a different idea. He points out that L45C4A >> is the relevant Law, and says that pointing to a card designates it. I >> think it is true that it is designated thus, so L45C4A appears to apply. > >I don't see how 45C4a helps us with "which card?" It tells us that >once we have determined which card declarer designated, that card and >no other must be played, but it seems to me we have to look at L46 to >tell us which card was designated. As David says, though, there is no >practical difference. I prefer this approach myself. >> He is not withdrawing it to comply with a penalty [L47A]: to change an >> inadvertent designation [L47C]: because of misinformation [L47E]. > >I still fail to see why you say we cannot use L47E2a. We use the >analogous L21B1 to allow a change of call after a L25A correction. Why >is this situation different? Because he was not misinformed. He presumed at his own risk. The player said "ace" and an ace was played - that is not information. Now, if the player had said "ace of clubs" and the spade ace was played that would be different, because he *was* misinformed. Note that we do not permit the analogous L21B1 to allow a change of call after a misunderstanding as to the call, only after a correction, which did not occur here. If a designation is corrected under L45C4B then we do allow the card to be changed under that Law. >> No, it is not. While we do allow incomplete designations without >> penalty, whether we should or not, it is an irregularity, > >More than that, it's an infraction. Again probably no practical >difference. I said it was an irregularity because that is the term L72B1 uses. Whether it was an infraction is not relevant to L72B1. >> Opinions differ sharply as to whether we should have sympathy for RHO. >> I have very little, since he violated L74B1. > >You mention the TD determining the facts: what facts suggest >_insufficient_ attention on RHO's part? Perhaps he was concentrating >on counting the hand. What rule says he has to watch for declarer's >gestures? He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient attention. >I am still interested to know whether the ruling would be different >depending on what RHO was thinking about or looking at. I do not see why. The spade ace was played per the Law book. Therefore he is obliged to follow with a spade, whether he was thinking of Wendy, wondering what to have for dinner, running the law book through his head, or considering how best to beat the contract. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 21:23:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PBMQR01041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:22:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PBMIH01033 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:22:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15wiUu-0003V3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:16:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:36:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@swipnet.se> <003c01c15ccc$8cfd9f80$ae967ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003c01c15ccc$8cfd9f80$ae967ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9PBMKH01037 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >Hans-Olof Hallén writes >>Some refer to law 58B3. Can you do that when a card (or two) are played >from >>dummy? > >>I think the question is whether L58B applies to dummy at all. If you >are able to play two cards from dummy simultaneously in the way meant by >L58B then L58B will certainly apply. > >Once again, I am tempted to wonder why it is that one considers what the >laws "mean" as opposed to what they say. The laws mean what they say; >they do not mean anything else, nor is the intent of the lawmakers to be >guessed at or even taken into account. As Grattan used to quote: > >When Senators have had their sport >And sealed the Law by vote, >It little matters what they thought - >We hang for what they wrote. If it were that simple I wonder why the Laws need discussion at all. Of course, it is not that simple. Different people have different views as to what the Laws mean, and how they apply, even when they use the same words as each other. Now, you may "know" that L58B's wording covers a case where a card appears in dummy and a different card is called for. however, the fact that you "know" such a thing does not mean that others, reading the same words as you, know any such thing. >It may very well be that L58 was crafted only to address the position >that occurs when a non-dummy detaches, through clumsiness, more than one >card from his own hand and leads or plays them to the current trick. But >nowhere in L58 is there any reference to a non-dummy; rather, the words >are: > >If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously... > >Well, declarer plays dummy's cards (L41D, L45B. L46A), and if he >contrives to play two or more of them simultaneously, then L58 appears >to me clearly to apply. Suppose, for example, that a declarer incapable >of speech and therefore compelled to play cards from dummy by picking >them up accidentally grabs both the ace of spades and the card below it, >a small spade. Should he not be protected (or possibly hurt) by L58 in >exactly the same way as a declarer who leads from his hand both the ace >and a small spade? Of course he should. The question is not whether L58B applies to cards played from dummy in the way that cards are played by other players because it is clear that then it applies. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Oct 25 21:54:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PBsUR01069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:54:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PBsOH01065 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 21:54:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA06609; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:44:45 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA20340; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:47:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011026134402.00ab80d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:48:03 +0200 To: "David Burn" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Cc: "Max Bavin" , "David Stevenson \(EBU\)" In-Reply-To: <002901c15cc1$cf1e5680$ae967ad5@pbncomputer> References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9PBsQH01066 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:25 24/10/2001 +0100, David Burn wrote: > > Our complete auction was > > > > 2D(multi)-X -2H(P/C) -P > > 2S -X -P -3H > > P -3S -P -4H > > All Pass > > > > 2D, 2H and 3S were alerted, neither Double was. > >Curious. One wonders what the unalerted meaning of a double of a Multi >might be. As far as I understand the regulations, it is not to be >alerted if and only if it is a penalty double of diamonds AG : OK, so you double 2D, showing diamonds and high cards (say, 5+ defensive tricks with D as trumps), and thereafter the auction reverts to you with a natural 2S. Because you have a *great* hand, not only diamonds (say, a 1444 19-count, why not ?), you double once again, saying 'partner, the hand could well belong to us, do something, if possible something else than pass'. This is a TO double, isn't it ? Why on Earth shouls it be alerted (come to think of it, even on Bêta Pictoris A) ? Which error did Max and his partner commit ? Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 00:16:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PEFlx10658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:15:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PEFfH10654 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:15:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA21171 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04759 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:09:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110251409.KAA04759@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A doubly irrational claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I have always wanted to rule under L72b1 because I believe declarer > could have known his action might cause damage. In determining whether > to adjust under 72b1 I do not have to prove intent. I am convinced by > David's arguments about the C7 being played, and would therefore restore > the equity in the hand at the end of play. While this is no doubt legal, it seems cumbersome and unpleasant for the players. Why not let the spade be played? Then you achieve a meaningful table result. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 00:41:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PEfdr10680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:41:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PEfXH10676 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA23302 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04813 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:35:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110251435.KAA04813@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see > others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient attention. This is where I'm still having trouble. Why should RHO have even been aware that any problem existed or that a ruling might be required? He (in an assumed version of the facts) heard "ace," knew that meant, in context, "ace of clubs," and played accordingly, never having been aware of any gesture. What has this player done wrong? How was he supposed to have been aware that there might be a problem? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 01:01:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PF0m713650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:00:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PF0hH13641 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:00:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA24612 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04846 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:55:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:55:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110251455.KAA04846@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David J. Grabiner" > Here's a clearer example. > > 1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. > > The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. > However, this is a takeout double of hearts, I'm with you up to here. > and it should not be alerted. But this last depends on the SO's alerting regulations. My interpretation of the EBU regulations in the Orange Book is that a takeout double here would have to be alerted, while a penalty double would not. Perhaps someone in the EBU could confirm or refute. In the ACBL, it would be the other way around, or at least I think so. It isn't entirely clear to me whether a penalty double would be alertable, but I'm fairly sure a takeout double would not be. (Initially I wrote 'certain' in place of 'fairly sure', but nothing about the ACBL alerting regulations is certain.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 01:01:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PF1Pg13743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:01:25 +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 (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PF1JH13721 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:01:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9PEtan02004 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:55:37 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9PEtZs23575 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:55:35 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:55:35 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 PAA07631 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:55:35 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA25016 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:55:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:55:34 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110251455.PAA25016@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: David Stevenson > > He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see > > others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient attention. > > This is where I'm still having trouble. Why should RHO have even been > aware that any problem existed or that a ruling might be required? He > (in an assumed version of the facts) heard "ace," knew that meant, in > context, "ace of clubs," and played accordingly, never having been > aware of any gesture. > > What has this player done wrong? How was he supposed to have been > aware that there might be a problem? > This is where I too had trouble. Is the player hearing "ace" supposed to have asked for a ruling? When a player hears an incomplete designation are they supposed to ask for a ruling? It will get very expensive in extra TDs (one per table?) if such rulings are to be requested. It would be like a running commentary. Declarer: "small" Defender: "TD please" TD: "the two of spades is played" Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 01:26:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PFQER17381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:26:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PFQ9H17377 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:26:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9PFKPC05013 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:20:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:20:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Darn; I did it again. This was accidentally sent to Steve instead of to the list. Apologies to Steve for the double post. >At 10:35 AM 10/25/01, willner wrote: > >> > From: David Stevenson >> > He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see >> > others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient >> attention. >> >>This is where I'm still having trouble. Why should RHO have even been >>aware that any problem existed or that a ruling might be required? He >>(in an assumed version of the facts) heard "ace," knew that meant, in >>context, "ace of clubs," and played accordingly, never having been >>aware of any gesture. > >He only *thought* he know what "ace" meant. He was wrong. His >misassumption was based on applying L46B3a in isolation, without >taking into account the totality of L46B. > >>What has this player done wrong? How was he supposed to have been >>aware that there might be a problem? > >What he did wrong was to hear "ace", which is inherently ambiguous, >and, in effect, make his own, incorrect ruling as to how the ambiguity >should be resolved, then proceed on the assumption that the TD would >agree with him. When the TD (correctly) ruled contrary to what he was >anticipating, he paid the price for plunging ahead based on his wrong >assumption. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 01:30:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PFUnM17394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:30:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PFUhH17390 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:30:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9PFP1721419 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:25:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111858.00aff160@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:25:09 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <200110251455.PAA25016@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:55 AM 10/25/01, Robin wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > > He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see > > > others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient > attention. > > > > This is where I'm still having trouble. Why should RHO have even been > > aware that any problem existed or that a ruling might be required? He > > (in an assumed version of the facts) heard "ace," knew that meant, in > > context, "ace of clubs," and played accordingly, never having been > > aware of any gesture. > > > > What has this player done wrong? How was he supposed to have been > > aware that there might be a problem? > >This is where I too had trouble. > >Is the player hearing "ace" supposed to have asked for a ruling? > >When a player hears an incomplete designation are they supposed >to ask for a ruling? It will get very expensive in extra TDs >(one per table?) if such rulings are to be requested. It would >be like a running commentary. > >Declarer: "small" >Defender: "TD please" >TD: "the two of spades is played" Well, if he really has no idea which card is called, he must call for the TD perforce. But this is not the usual case, nor the issue at hand. If he thinks he knows which card has been designated by the incomplete call, he need only verify that that card is in fact the one that actually gets played from the dummy, calling the TD only if it isn't. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 01:45:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PFjS917411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:45:29 +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 f9PFjIH17407 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:45:19 +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 f9PFctv02134; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:38:55 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011025103040.00a13dd0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:40:31 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <200110251435.KAA04813@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:35 AM 10/25/01 -0400, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see > > others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient attention. > >This is where I'm still having trouble. Why should RHO have even been >aware that any problem existed or that a ruling might be required? He >(in an assumed version of the facts) heard "ace," knew that meant, in >context, "ace of clubs," and played accordingly, never having been >aware of any gesture. > >What has this player done wrong? How was he supposed to have been >aware that there might be a problem? Possibly when he notices that dummy has placed the trump ace in the played position. This defender: a) Knew he wasn't watching declarer, even though declarers do sometimes indicate cards with a gesture. b) Knew the designation was incomplete ["Ace"], and that there were two aces in dummy, _and_, c) Saw dummy play the ace of trumps. Now if only 'b' were the case, that would be quite different. I do not expect declarers to call the TD every time there's an incomplete designation. [As I said, I usually pause long enough to make sure declarer wanted dummy to play the card dummy plays, but that is beyond any legal responsibility.] Even if 'a' and 'b' were both the case, I think things might be different. But when you see dummy play the "wrong" card after an incomplete designation, especially when you know you haven't been watching declarer, you forfeit my sympathy if you go ahead and 'revoke' rather than ask dummy why he's playing the wrong card or calling the TD. Again, I said you forfeit my sympathy, and DWS will rule that you have paid insufficient attention to the game. I am aware that you are only required to make dummy withdraw his incorrect card once attention has been drawn to it, and no law requires you to draw attention to it. I am aware that no law requires you to watch gestures, and that gestures [while, I think, designations] are improper according to L46A. But I think in cases of incomplete designation defender has at least a _minimal_ responsibility to figure out what card declarer was trying to designate, and playing a club when you can clearly see that dummy has played a trump doesn't cut it in my book. FWIW. I'll try to shut up now. Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 05:53:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PJqJd27774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 05:52:19 +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 f9PJqEH27770 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 05:52:14 +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 f9PJkWB21202 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00b801c15d8d$965354a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3BCA9CEB.6DBE04B7@village.uunet.be> <003201c15640$b73b5860$d048063e@pacific> <3BCC3E7C.3139F5D1@village.uunet.be> <004201c15715$1fc1aa40$255f063e@pacific> <003101c157f1$d1b1a660$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Assigning scores after IWoG action Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:45:16 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Marvin L. French" > > Wife Alice played in 3NT a few weeks ago. It was not only a bad > contract, but she received a killing lead from Q10 doubleton of > clubs. She held A8, with 7xx in dummy. After taking the second > round, she played some high cards and then had to surrender the lead > in order to establish enough tricks. All she could do was hope that > whoever won the concession trick had no more clubs. Unfortunately > the long club hand (with J96 of clubs, having unaccountably played > the king earlier) won the trick. However, the defender had forgotten > that her clubs were high and led the six of clubs to dummy's 7. > Alice took the rest for +600 instead of -300. > > Now that was one of the most irrational plays I've ever seen from a > non-novice (the pair placed first in section). > > Let us suppose that we had reached 3NT illegally, I going from 2NT > to 3NT based on some UI. The opponents keep the table result, but > our score gets adjusted back to 2NT. You [Grattan, and evidently the WBF] > would adjust our score > to -200, not +150, because the defense was highly irrational. [I actually wrote "improbable," not quite the right word in this context.] > That can't be right. Can't find any BLML comment on the above, to my disappointment. Rich Colker, ACBL Appeals Administrator, and Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director, both agree with me: You don't change the play of the cards unless it seems that the play may have been affected by the infraction (e.g., the level of contract could have made a difference). All the ACBLLC had to say in its November 1998 meeting (Orlando NABC) about the pertinent item in the WBFLC Lille minutes was that actions by the NOS subsequent to the infraction may be relevant to their score adjustment, but "damage" on the OS part "should be based solely on the score achieved." All that means is that an IWoG action which annuls redress for the NOS does not have relevance for the determination of "damage" inflicted by the OS, so the annulment applies to the NOS only. There was nothing in the Lille minutes to say otherwise, so the statement puzzles me. And now I see that I was wrong in assuming that the CoP merely echoed the Lille interpretation. Re-reading the Lille minutes, I can't find in it any removal of IWoG actions when determining the OS score adjustment, as the CoP requires. Or does it?: [CoP]: "...the infractor's score is to be adjusted without regard to the revoke." "Without regard," taken literally, would mean that IWoG effects on the score are not to be excluded when determining the number of tricks to be assigned to the OS. Evidently, going by what Grattan says, "without regard to" is intended to mean "without inclusion of." Anyway, it seems that the ACBL is not ignoring a WBFLC interpretation. Ton, is this correct? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 07:39:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PLd5Y29230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:39:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PLcxH29216 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 07:38:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9PLW8F26540 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110251455.PAA25016@tempest.npl.co.uk> References: <200110251455.PAA25016@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:30:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >When a player hears an incomplete designation are they supposed >to ask for a ruling? It will get very expensive in extra TDs >(one per table?) if such rulings are to be requested. It would >be like a running commentary. > >Declarer: "small" >Defender: "TD please" >TD: "the two of spades is played" TD: "Yes, I understand that Law 45 makes an incomplete designation an irregularity, and Law 9 says when an irregularity occurs, you may call attention to it, but I ask you please not to do that, because it just takes up too much of my time. Surely you can sort it out yourself." Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9iFHL2UW3au93vOEQIJaQCdGo8ACcfk8ZpwDq2Ymk43m6alWskAn141 A73DqgZJcXM1y8eijKEypro0 =S0e9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 08:38:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PMcPs00958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:38:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PMcKH00954 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:38:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA24345 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:32:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA05506 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:32:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 18:32:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200110252232.SAA05506@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Well, if he really has no idea which card is called, he must call for > the TD perforce. But this is not the usual case, nor the issue at hand. Agreed. > If he thinks he knows which card has been designated by the incomplete > call, he need only verify that that card is in fact the one that > actually gets played from the dummy, calling the TD only if it isn't. OK, at least I understand this. Whenever declarer's call of a card from dummy is less than complete, the next player may lose rights if he plays before dummy places a card in the played position. That is reasonable although not how I personally prefer the game to be played. (I dislike having declarer's carelessness, indeed his infraction, inflict an extra burden on the defenders.) > From: Grant Sterling > This defender: > a) Knew he wasn't watching declarer, even though > declarers do sometimes indicate cards with a gesture. > b) Knew the designation was incomplete ["Ace"], and that > there were two aces in dummy, _and_, > c) Saw dummy play the ace of trumps. I don't think c) was at all clear from the original description. Perhaps we have been arguing about different assumed facts. I agree that if c) is true (and defender played a club anyway), he has only himself to blame. (You probably don't recall, but I specifically mentioned the matter of a TD judgment ruling as to why East had played the club.) I think most of those who have said East should not be penalized have been assuming that c) is *not* true. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 09:36:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PNaTh01001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:36:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PNaOH00997 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:36:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from c1r5i8 (pool0558.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.136.48]) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA27825 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002801c15dad$10871c60$3088b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:30:41 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Throughout this thread I have seen myriad references (Eric, DWS, et al) to dummy's LHO-defender's having "made his own _ruling_" that the CA was dummy's proper _played card_. This LHO-made-a-ruling notion is thoroughly at odds with the realities of rapid-fire play action. [There was nothing in Liz' original problem posting that suggested any _pause for own ruling_ (analogous to a bidder's pause for thought?) delay on defender's part.] For myself, despite being blessed with very acute hearing, I am careful to a fault to double-check plays from dummy when I am either Dummy or Dummy's LHO. I often ask: "Is _that_ (the card put in play position by Dummy) the played card?" However, I could imagine myself being trapped, in the heat of battle, by Declarer's split-medium (split-message) card designation: _calling_ "ace" but _pointing_ at the other-suit SA. Faced with the current state of the Laws, I would: 0) Sound out all 4 players as to exactly what had happened and, presuming that it is essentially as posed by Liz . . . 1) allow Declarer's play of the SA without penalty 2) apply L58b2 and allow defender to withdraw the C7 without penalty [AI to defense, UI to Declarer] 3) advise Declarer about his irregularity under L46 and admonish him to avoid mixed-message point-and-call designations in the future [realizing, however, that the realities of human eye/hand/speech motor-control hiccups will probably cause the situation to recur sometime, despite good intent] 4) caution defender to watch Dummy's move of each card into the played position [hopefully honoring Declarer's actual choice of played card :)) ] to confirm the _played card_ -- and to _ask_ in case of any doubt about the played card 5) given the range of BLML views in this thread, caution Declarer and Defender that another Director might rule differently, given _his_ assessment of what had happened here. For future Law-redraft, I would suggest that: 1) applicability of L58 to plays from Dummy be reviewed and clarified 2) Laws 45, 46, and 47 should be carefully reviewed for clarity 3) mixed-message card designation (i.e., by more than one means, such as calling, pointing at, touching, withdrawing card directly from Dummy) be addressed by and discouraged by the Laws 4) when mixed-message card designation (e.g., call-and-point) is made and Director judges that the designation could have been confusing, Director should lean heavily toward protecting NOS from consequent harm Tom Wood Eric Landau wrote -- > > >Steve Willner wrote -- > > > >> > David Stevenson wrote -- > >> > He presumed a ruling without calling the TD or even checking to see > >> > others had come to the same conclusion: that is insufficient > >> attention. > >> > >>This is where I'm still having trouble. Why should RHO have even been > >>aware that any problem existed or that a ruling might be required? He > >>(in an assumed version of the facts) heard "ace," knew that meant, in > >>context, "ace of clubs," and played accordingly, never having been > >>aware of any gesture. > > > >He only *thought* he knew what "ace" meant. He was wrong. His > >misassumption was based on applying L46B3a in isolation, without > >taking into account the totality of L46B. > > > >>What has this player done wrong? How was he supposed to have been > >>aware that there might be a problem? > > > >What he did wrong was to hear "ace", which is inherently ambiguous, > >and, in effect, make his own, incorrect ruling as to how the ambiguity > >should be resolved, then proceed on the assumption that the TD would > >agree with him. When the TD (correctly) ruled contrary to what he was > >anticipating, he paid the price for plunging ahead based on his wrong > >assumption. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 09:52:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9PNqR701020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:52:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9PNqMH01016 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:52:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from c1r5i8 (pool0558.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.136.48]) by pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA07024 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003301c15daf$4c015420$3088b2d1@c1r5i8> Reply-To: "Thomas Wood" From: "Thomas Wood" To: "BLML" References: <200110251455.KAA04846@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:46:40 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote -- > [snip] > In the ACBL, it would be the other way around, or at least I think so. > It isn't entirely clear to me whether a penalty double would be > alertable, but I'm fairly sure a takeout double would not be. > (Initially I wrote 'certain' in place of 'fairly sure', but nothing > about the ACBL alerting regulations is certain.) > Right you are, Steve. Three things in the life of an ACBLer are sure: death taxes the indecipherability of ACBL alerting regs Tom Wood -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 18:01:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9Q7vIE20756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:57:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9Q7vCH20751 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:57:12 +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 JAA09296; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:48:13 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id JAA21916; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:51:17 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:51:32 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:20 25/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>What he did wrong was to hear "ace", which is inherently ambiguous, and, >>in effect, make his own, incorrect ruling as to how the ambiguity should >>be resolved, then proceed on the assumption that the TD would agree with >>him. When the TD (correctly) ruled contrary to what he was anticipating, >>he paid the price for plunging ahead based on his wrong assumption. AG : isn't there just a teeny weeny little chance that declarer made two different designations with the intent of confusing the defenders ? He could then, whatever the card played by RHO, claim he was playing the *other* ace and get a favorable ruling. And if he didn't, wasn't it at least theoretically possible ? You see what I mean, L72B1. Is the double designation an irregularity ? It seems to be, because he went against L46A. In such a case, where one side causes, by a small irregularity, an bigger irregularity by the other side, I feel that restoring the equity means not penalising the irregularity. Like in that case : - Your lead. - Thanks. Oops, it wasn't mine. Of course, it is only valid if equity is our main concern. It should be, shouldn't it ? Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 21:04:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QB3S627226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QB39H27205 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15x4fw-000DeB-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:57:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:45:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >There is one thing still unclear to me, though. Law 45C4(a) speaks to >a player "naming or otherwise designating" a card he *proposes* to >play. So if declarer, at a time when a card is to be played from >dummy, points at a card in dummy, is that card played, or is he >simply *proposing* to play it? Does it matter? He is *proposing* to play it, but then it says it must be played. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 21:04:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QB3Um27228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QB39H27207 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15x4fw-000DeD-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:57:22 +0100 Message-ID: <7bNAmlCQ4A27EwiJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:05:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110221636.RAA16756@tempest.npl.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20011022173705.00af5c20@127.0.0.1> <002101c15b80$664abc80$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20011024212046.007feea0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011024212046.007feea0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J. Grabiner writes >At 09:56 PM 10/22/01 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >>From: "Eric Landau" >> >>> Marvin wrote: >>> >>> >From: "Robin Barker" >>> > >>> > > So what about (all doubles TO): >>> > >>> > > (1) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-X ? >>> > >>> >2H is not a natural bid, IMO, TO X Alertable >>> > >>> > > (2) 2D(multi)-P-2H(P/C)-P-P-X ? >>> > >>> >Now 2H has become a natural bid, TO X not Alertable >>> >>> [and more, similarly] >>> >>> I can't buy this. I happen to think that 2H is natural, but if I'm >>> wrong then it's not natural. >> >>> It must, however, be whichever it is when >>> one makes it. It can't start out "not a natural bid", then "become a >>> natural bid" when partner calls in response to it. >> >>I should have written "in effect has become a natural bid," I suppose. The >>opponents have shown four or more cards in hearts now, making any call that >>establishes that fact (the pass) the vehicle for making any heart bid, >>future or previous, *in effect* now a "natural" bid. A double of hearts at >>this point would be assumed takeout, so no Alert of the double. > >What is being doubled here is the pass, showing a natural suit. > >Here's a clearer example. > >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. > >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. Remember, the ACBL tries to make alerting logical: the EBU tries to make alerting simple. Perhaps both fail, but it explains the rationale behind a lot of the situations which are different. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 21:04:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QB3VM27230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QB3CH27211 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15x4fw-000DeC-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:57:28 +0100 Message-ID: <6LbACYCJ2A27EwjD@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:03:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >> No, it is not. While we do allow incomplete designations without >>penalty, whether we should or not, it is an irregularity, and in this >>case it appears that declarer knew it might benefit his side. The hand >>is played out, but the score is then adjusted to remove the revoke >>penalty under L72B1. > >I have always wanted to rule under L72b1 because I believe declarer >could have known his action might cause damage. In determining whether >to adjust under 72b1 I do not have to prove intent. I am convinced by >David's arguments about the C7 being played, and would therefore restore >the equity in the hand at the end of play. cheers john >> >> ---------- >> >> Another thing that has been discussed is that RHO may have played a >>club "because he knows the Laws" and thus he knows that the "ace" >>referred to the club ace. I am unconvinced that there is any reason to >>give RHO the benefit of anything for knowing part of the Law but not all >>the Law, and if he really knows L46B he knows the "incontrovertible" >>part. > >Many players use the short form designations, knowing that they are >interpreted unambiguously. They almost certainly don't know why they >work, and don't know the laws behind them. Most London players do, from >my own personal knowledge. It's because of this I am so sympathetic to >the defender. >> >> Opinions differ sharply as to whether we should have sympathy for RHO. >>I have very little, since he violated L74B1. But whether you have any, >>you cannot let him take his club back, since the Law does not permit it. >> >I'm convinced by this. I'll adjust at the end. cheers john There is no reason to adjust unless you believe that the declarer could have known that it would be likely to damage the opponents. For the reasons given in your previous paragraph this is not usually the case. You are not going to wield L72B1 on all the London players you know about, are you? No, L72B1 does not require intent, but it does require something more than following the normal approach, even when that approach is not correct. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 21:04:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QB3TB27229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QB39H27206 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15x4fw-000DeF-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:57:23 +0100 Message-ID: <6bQA2+Ck$A27EwCy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:13:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A doubly irrational claim References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Contract: 2H by West, imps > > North > 2 > --- > --- > J87 >West Dummy >J10 8 >Q --- >--- --- >9 A105 > South (me) > K95 > --- > --- > 6 > >North's opening lead had been a low >club to my queen and West's king. > >In the four card ending, the lead was in >dummy. Declarer needed three out of the >four remaining tricks to make 2H. > >However, West claimed all four tricks, >having forgotten the spade king was >outstanding. > >The TD ruled one off, on this line: > >1. Spade, ducked to the jack >2. Heart queen, club six discard >3. Spade ten *cashed* > >If West played that way, would it be: > >a) careless or inferior? >b) irrational for some but not others? >c) always irrational? > >Furthermore, if West had not claimed, >it would have been irrational for me >to have ducked my spade king - declarer >then gets an overtrick by taking the >67%+ club finesse. No, not irrational. If West had not claimed, perhaps you might have thought the position was different, or you might have considered you could not lose because declarer is not going to take a finesse in clubs so the duck cannot cost. Your duck in ordinary play falls into the category of "inferior". If you play double dummy that would be different, but it is surely not irrational in normal play. >Can a future irrational but successful >NOS play be included in a TD's evaluation >of an OS incorrect claim? No probably not, but this is a poor example. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 21:04:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QB3Sh27227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QB39H27208 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 21:03:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15x4fw-000DeE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:57:22 +0100 Message-ID: <87$BOxCa6A27EwhC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:07:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110241803.OAA27152@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >At 2:03 PM -0400 10/24/01, Steve Willner wrote: >>By the way, I'm surprised that there is any doubt that the non-alerted >>meaning of the double is takeout. > >I am not at all sure that we should consider that a call necessarily >has different meanings depending on whether it's alerted. The meaning >of a call is whatever the partnership making that call has agreed it >should be (or, presumably, if they have not agreed, whatever "general >bridge knowledge" says it is). The alert is a separate thing, a >warning that the meaning is (or may be) different from that which >opponents may expect. That is what the alert is *for*, but in most jurisdictions not what the alert actually *is*. The alert is a warning that the meaning is (or may be) different from whatever the SO defines as the unalerted meaning. > We may, in some cases, *assume* that if a >double is not alerted, it is for takeout, but that doesn't mean we're >necessarily correct. Certainly - it depends on the particular reg. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 22:25:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QCPFB03535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:25:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-1.cais.net (stmpy-1.cais.net [205.252.14.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QCP9H03531 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 22:25:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9QCJP701265 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011026081353.00b053f0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:19:34 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:51 AM 10/27/01, Alain wrote: >At 11:20 25/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: > >>>What he did wrong was to hear "ace", which is inherently ambiguous, >>>and, in effect, make his own, incorrect ruling as to how the >>>ambiguity should be resolved, then proceed on the assumption that >>>the TD would agree with him. When the TD (correctly) ruled contrary >>>to what he was anticipating, he paid the price for plunging ahead >>>based on his wrong assumption. > >AG : isn't there just a teeny weeny little chance that declarer made >two different designations with the intent of confusing the defenders >? He could then, whatever the card played by RHO, claim he was playing >the *other* ace and get a favorable ruling. And if he didn't, wasn't >it at least theoretically possible ? That scenario just doesn't work. Suppose that if RHO had played a spade, declarer would have claimed that he intended to play the CA. He must then presumably have at least some valid rationale for that claim. For that to be true, his original incomplete designation must have left some room for ambiguity, which means that the SA was not "incontrovertably designated" (as declarer would have had to have been prepared to "controvert" it himself). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Oct 26 23:20:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QDJcQ03568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:19:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QDJWH03564 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 23:19:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA20621; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:12:29 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA23861; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:13:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027151148.00ac7ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:13:52 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011026081353.00b053f0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:19 26/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:51 AM 10/27/01, Alain wrote: > >>At 11:20 25/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>>What he did wrong was to hear "ace", which is inherently ambiguous, >>>>and, in effect, make his own, incorrect ruling as to how the ambiguity >>>>should be resolved, then proceed on the assumption that the TD would >>>>agree with him. When the TD (correctly) ruled contrary to what he was >>>>anticipating, he paid the price for plunging ahead based on his wrong >>>>assumption. >> >>AG : isn't there just a teeny weeny little chance that declarer made two >>different designations with the intent of confusing the defenders ? He >>could then, whatever the card played by RHO, claim he was playing the >>*other* ace and get a favorable ruling. And if he didn't, wasn't it at >>least theoretically possible ? > >That scenario just doesn't work. Suppose that if RHO had played a spade, >declarer would have claimed that he intended to play the CA. He must then >presumably have at least some valid rationale for that claim. For that to >be true, his original incomplete designation must have left some room for >ambiguity, which means that the SA was not "incontrovertably designated" >(as declarer would have had to have been prepared to "controvert" it himself). AG : which means that no card was incontrovertably designated. Yes indeed. And this is an incorrection. So why are so many of us prone to penalise the *other* side ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 00:17:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QEGNs03606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:16:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QEGHH03602 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:16:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f9QEAXC90429 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20011026100551.00afde90@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:10:42 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027151148.00ac7ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20011026081353.00b053f0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:13 AM 10/27/01, Alain wrote: >At 08:19 26/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >>At 03:51 AM 10/27/01, Alain wrote: >>> >>>AG : isn't there just a teeny weeny little chance that declarer made >>>two different designations with the intent of confusing the >>>defenders ? He could then, whatever the card played by RHO, claim he >>>was playing the *other* ace and get a favorable ruling. And if he >>>didn't, wasn't it at least theoretically possible ? >> >>That scenario just doesn't work. Suppose that if RHO had played a >>spade, declarer would have claimed that he intended to play the >>CA. He must then presumably have at least some valid rationale for >>that claim. For that to be true, his original incomplete designation >>must have left some room for ambiguity, which means that the SA was >>not "incontrovertably designated" (as declarer would have had to have >>been prepared to "controvert" it himself). > >AG : which means that no card was incontrovertably designated. Yes >indeed. And this is an incorrection. So why are so many of us prone to >penalise the *other* side ? "No card was incontrovertably designated"... in Alain's scenario. But in the case at hand, the TD has presumably determined that the SA *was* incontrovertably designated (as this was stipulated in the original post). Had he not done so, the CA would have stood as played, and we wouldn't have a problem to discuss. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 00:17:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QEHFm03618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:17:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QEH9H03614 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:17:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.34.165] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15x7hk-00040f-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:11:25 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c15e28$154aa200$a5227ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20011027151148.00ac7ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:11:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : which means that no card was incontrovertably designated. Yes indeed. > And this is an incorrection. So why are so many of us prone to penalise the > *other* side ? I don't think all that many of us want to do that. Some want to "penalise" the defender for not paying attention. As to that, in the vast majority of cases when a declarer calls for a card from dummy by means of a designation that is technically "incomplete", I don't think that a defender is required to wait until dummy has played a card. Rather, a defender may rely on the Law relating to incomplete designations to determine which card has been legally requested, and may follow suit to that card without waiting for some action by dummy. Others assert that declarer's method of getting the ace of spades played is in fact a legal and complete designation - he has named a rank, and pointed to a suit. As to that, the Laws state declarer's responsibilities; he has in this case not followed them; it does not seem to me that his action should be regarded as a proper form of play; if it induces an "illegal" play from an opponent, that play should not be penalised. I would not go down the path of saying that declarer has committed an infraction that he could know might cause damage to the opponents - this appears to me a considerable leap of imagination. In declarer's own mind, of course, he has done nothing wrong - he was trying to get the ace of spades played and thought that his actions were legally sufficient to do this. One has recourse to L72 when dealing with things that are clear infractions, and immediately recognisable as such by all parties (as an insufficient bid, or a play out of turn). But the argument for the use of L72 is not without force. Others still have suggested that declarer's actions amount to a designation of two cards, and that those cards should be regarded as having been played simultaneously from dummy. This seems to me a reasonable approach, though it is not one that I would myself take. It appears to lead to a position in which L58 can be used in order to restore the position to what it "ought to" be, which is a good thing. Finally, some have said that declarer has played the ace of clubs; East has followed to it; and declarer now wishes the ace of spades to be played from dummy instead. Ton Kooijman has suggested what to me is not at all unlikely: declarer said "ace", and not until East played a (presumably unexpected) club did declarer become aware of the fact that the ace of clubs was the card he had requested, while the ace of spades was the card he wanted. But the original facts of the case indicated that declarer's intention throughout was to play the ace of spades. Well, if he can demonstrate that to the satisfaction of the director, the ace of spades may indeed be played from dummy, and East may change his card without penalty. I would say this: it seems to me that the problem arises because no order of priority is given in L45 and L46. What one would like to see is a requirement for declarer to name cards (by suit and rank) to be played from dummy, or to use the standard "incomplete designations" such as "small", or "top", or "cover" only when there is no contextual ambiguity. Only when declarer is physically incapable of naming cards should "other designations" be allowed. Indeed, there is no mention of "otherwise designates" in L45B - it appears only in L45C4 (and is forgotten about again by the time L45D is reached). L45C4 is there to cater for positions in which players are not following correct procedure, in order to prevent them from clowning around by sticking cards on their foreheads, or to make them play cards which they have indicated they hold to avoid UI problems. It is not there to indicate a proper way in which a card may be played from dummy - L45B and L46 are entirely adequate to deal with that. I venture to suggest that if the words "or otherwise designates" did not appear in L45C4, or were qualified in such a way as to make it clear that "other designations" were not (except in cases of physical impairment) legitimate ways of playing cards, this problem would not have arisen. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 00:54:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QEsIQ04014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:54:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QEsBH03996 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:54:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9QEm0h19168; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:48:06 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <034101c159a9$9829b5e0$bfd536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <8ryBa+Gj5B17EwIO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:38:38 -0400 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:45 PM +0100 10/25/01, David Stevenson wrote: >He is *proposing* to play it, but then it says it must be played. I understand that part. What causes a problem is this: what happens if a player proposes to play one card, while simultaneously (or nearly so) actually playing another? Is this the same thing as simultaneously playing two different cards? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9l3tr2UW3au93vOEQJNdgCfSa+lr6XYkDzlWvCTUBRuCilbEAkAoJ3v qZUx90w76i4ux3kW2/0z9Bne =f2q6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 00:54:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QEsk004076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:54:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QEscH04055 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 00:54:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA15687; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:45:39 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA19619; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:48:42 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027164716.00acaec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 16:48:58 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011026100551.00afde90@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027151148.00ac7ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011026081353.00b053f0@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9QEseH04060 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:10 26/10/2001 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >"No card was incontrovertably designated"... in Alain's scenario. But in >the case at hand, the TD has presumably determined that the SA *was* >incontrovertably designated (as this was stipulated in the original >post). Had he not done so, the CA would have stood as played, and we >wouldn't have a problem to discuss. AG : yes, he did. What I'm saying now is that, according to Eric's next-to-last post, he was wrong. Since there is plenty of ambiguïty, *no* card was *incontrovertably* designated. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 01:06:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QF6fV05816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:06:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9QF6ZH05804 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:06:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA18869; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:57:36 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA29052; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:00:40 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027165104.00ac9d60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:00:56 +0200 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <000b01c15e28$154aa200$a5227ad5@pbncomputer> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20011027151148.00ac7ad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:11 26/10/2001 +0100, David Burn wrote: >I would say this: it seems to me that the problem arises because no >order of priority is given in L45 and L46. What one would like to see is >a requirement for declarer to name cards (by suit and rank) to be played >from dummy, or to use the standard "incomplete designations" such as >"small", or "top", or "cover" only when there is no contextual >ambiguity. Only when declarer is physically incapable of naming cards >should "other designations" be allowed. AG : Okay, I'll buy that. BTW, what's "being physically incapable" ? Being dumb ? Having difficulties in swallowing one's sandwich (without HQ) ? Coughing ? Desperately trying to uncap one's pen ? (not mutually exclusive) >Indeed, there is no mention of "otherwise designates" in L45B - it >appears only in L45C4 (and is forgotten about again by the time L45D is >reached). L45C4 is there to cater for positions in which players are not >following correct procedure, in order to prevent them from clowning >around by sticking cards on their foreheads, or to make them play cards >which they have indicated they hold to avoid UI problems. It is not >there to indicate a proper way in which a card may be played from >dummy - L45B and L46 are entirely adequate to deal with that. I venture >to suggest that if the words "or otherwise designates" did not appear in >L45C4, or were qualified in such a way as to make it clear that "other >designations" were not (except in cases of physical impairment) >legitimate ways of playing cards, this problem would not have arisen. AG : according to L45B, there are only two ways to play a card from dummy : by naming it (completely is best) or by pulling it. Thus, "otherwise", in L45C4, may only apply to pulling it, simply because other ways will not be considered designations. Perhaps another admissible case is when you let your card fall on the floor. You say : 'going to play that one', and point to the floor, just in case some other card becomes slightly visible in the process of picking it. Best regards, alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 01:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QFi9v07912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:44:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QFi4H07908 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 01:44:05 +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 LAA26984 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:38:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA12738 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200110261538.LAA12738@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Alain Gottcheiner > You see what I mean, L72B1. Is the double designation an irregularity ? It > seems to be, because he went against L46A. It occurs to me that if you want to take the approach of adjusting the score afterwards, you don't need 72B1. Declarer's improper designation is an _infraction_ (L46A), and there is no penalty specified, so you can go directly to L12A1 if the infraction damages opponents. (This is contrary to what I wrote before; there is after all a difference whether the improper designation is a "violation of law" or merely an irregularity.) I still dislike the idea of an adjusted score. Let's find a way for the players to play bridge. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 02:02:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QG2PC07941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:02:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9QG2JH07931 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:02:20 +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 IAA20980; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:56:33 -0700 Message-Id: <200110261556.IAA20980@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Oct 2001 14:05:20 BST." <7bNAmlCQ4A27EwiJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 08:56:33 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >Here's a clearer example. > > > >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. > > > >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. > >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. > > The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be "natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). -- 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 Oct 27 02:34:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QGXmb13843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:33:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk (batman.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QGXfH13830 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from fermat.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.1.37]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f9QGRqn22846; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:27:53 +0100 (BST) Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9QGRqS14508; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:27:52 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:27:52 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 RAA09814; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:27:51 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA04360; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:27:51 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:27:51 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200110261627.RAA04360@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > > >Here's a clearer example. > > > > > >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. > > > > > >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. > > >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. > > > > The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. > > Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems > to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be > "natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as > responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). > Unfortunately the EBU has a definition of "natural" for alerting purposes. "(a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of 2C in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural." Under this definition, 2H is not "natural". However, 2H is not conventional for the purposes of L27; or at least that is how I ruled at Brighton, after consultation with the EBU chief TD. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 02:41:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QGfCE14846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:41:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9QGf6H14835 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 02:41:07 +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 JAA21843; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:35:22 -0700 Message-Id: <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:27:51 BST." <200110261627.RAA04360@tempest.npl.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:35:22 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >Here's a clearer example. > > > > > > > >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. > > > > > > > >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. > > > >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. > > > > > > The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. > > > > Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems > > to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be > > "natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as > > responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). > > > Unfortunately the EBU has a definition of "natural" for alerting purposes. > > "(a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any > other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener > rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of > 2C in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural." Really??? So if partner opens 3H and I raise to 4H because I think we can make 4H, my 4H bid is not considered "natural" because it doesn't guarantee four hearts???? And if the next hand makes a takeout double, the double has to be alerted because it's a tkaeout double of a non-natural bid????????? I think this definition of "natural" has a huge mistake in it, in that it doesn't allow you to support (or return to, or take a preference to) partner's suit. The above definition should be amended so that it doesn't apply any time you're bidding a suit partner has previously shown. And I think this mistake is so glaring that everyone other than David Burn should simply assume that the rule doesn't apply when bidding partner's suit. I think the ACBL's definition of "natural" makes the same mistake, although I'd have to look it up to be sure. Come on, let's show some common sense here. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 04:02:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QI1uX18685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:01:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QI1oH18681 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:01:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.27.213] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15xBDB-0002Vq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: <000b01c15e47$77fc58c0$d51b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 18:55:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam wrote: > > > > >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. > > > > > > > > > >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. > > > > >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. > > > > > > > > The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. > > > > > > Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems > > > to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be > > > "natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as > > > responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). Quite so. The trouble is that this sort of thing is pretty much impossible to codify in a set of regulations capable of being understood by anyone, let alone everyone. > > Unfortunately the EBU has a definition of "natural" for alerting purposes. > > > > "(a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any > > other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener > > rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of > > 2C in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural." > > Really??? So if partner opens 3H and I raise to 4H because I think we > can make 4H, my 4H bid is not considered "natural" because it doesn't > guarantee four hearts???? And if the next hand makes a takeout > double, the double has to be alerted because it's a tkaeout double of > a non-natural bid????????? Indeed. It is possible that our definition of "natural" might be extended to include any bid which, in the opinion of the bidder, names a denomination in which he is content (ceteris paribus) for his side to play. Otherwise, for example, one would have to regard a raise of 1S to 2S on (potentially) three cards as "unnatural". Or, one would have to regard preference in auctions such as 1H-1NT-2D-2H on a potential doubleton as "unnatural". I confess that this glaring flaw in the regulations has not occurred to me before, but it is also true that it has not generated anything that one might regard as a problem. > I think this definition of "natural" has a huge mistake in it, in that > it doesn't allow you to support (or return to, or take a preference > to) partner's suit. The above definition should be amended so that it > doesn't apply any time you're bidding a suit partner has previously > shown. And I think this mistake is so glaring that everyone other > than David Burn should simply assume that the rule doesn't apply when > bidding partner's suit. I think the ACBL's definition of "natural" > makes the same mistake, although I'd have to look it up to be sure. I agree with all of this except for "anyone other than David Burn". I have long thought that there is little point in regarding as "unnatural" any bid which could become the final contract. But, and this will stagger all of you... > Come on, let's show some common sense here. ...I am in complete agreement with DWS on the subject of alerting regulations. As he says, ours strive for simplicity; in that respect, they do a great deal to ensure that what gets alerted are calls whose meanings the opponents may not know where their ignorance may lead to their failing to do the best for their side; what do not get alerted are calls such that "everyone knows" what they mean. Oh, there are some anomalies, but it is not possible to achieve the level of simplicity we want without some foolishness in specific sequences. We could, and perhaps we should, make some adjustment to our regulations to the effect that any call which has significant potential for ending the auction should be regarded as "natural". But it is not clear to me that we should do a great deal more than that. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 04:37:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QIbLb18707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:37:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9QIbFH18703 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:37:16 +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 f9QIVWB27449; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004101c15e4c$55b168a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:27:26 -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: "Adam Beneschan" > I think this definition of "natural" has a huge mistake in it, in that > it doesn't allow you to support (or return to, or take a preference > to) partner's suit. The above definition should be amended so that it > doesn't apply any time you're bidding a suit partner has previously > shown. And I think this mistake is so glaring that everyone other > than David Burn should simply assume that the rule doesn't apply when > bidding partner's suit. I think the ACBL's definition of "natural" > makes the same mistake, although I'd have to look it up to be sure. > Yes, the same mistake, although it doesn't apply to raises of a suit actually bid by partner. The definition in its General Convention Chart (four or more cards for a major, three or more for a minor, balanced hand for notrump) applies to opening bids, [new suit?] responses, and direct notrump overcalls. The ACBL Alert Procedure's definition is a bit broader: Any offer to play *in a suit for the first time* that shows 1. Three or more cards in a minor 2./3. Four or more cards in a major or 1-level overcall 4. Five or more cards in a weak two bid 5. Six or more cards for a 3-level preempt Same mistake, and no mention of notrump openings/overcalls I have always maintained that the word "natural," not found in the Laws (except in an obscure footnote), is not a useful concept. A call is either a convention or not a convention (a "treatment" in my vocabulary). Bidding a suit that partner has shown by any means is not a convention so long as it conveys a willingness (even if reluctant) to play in that suit or shows high card strength (or length), in that suit. 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 Oct 27 04:48:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QIm5418727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:48:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QIlxH18723 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 04:48:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([147.11.36.215]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA24075 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:41:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:47:50 -0700 Message-ID: <000401c15e4e$b6b8a9e0$d7240b93@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <004101c15e4c$55b168a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Yes, the same mistake, although it doesn't apply to raises of a > suit actually bid by partner. The definition in its General > Convention Chart > (four or more cards for a major, three or more for a minor, > balanced hand > for notrump) applies to opening bids, [new suit?] responses, > and direct > notrump overcalls. > > The ACBL Alert Procedure's definition is a bit broader: Any > offer to play > *in a suit for the first time* that shows > > 1. Three or more cards in a minor > 2./3. Four or more cards in a major or 1-level overcall > 4. Five or more cards in a weak two bid > 5. Six or more cards for a 3-level preempt As usual with the ACBL alert regulations, there are holes big enough to drive a truck through. Consider the following: Suppose I want to play a canape overcall style in which it is permissable to overcall on a 3 card suit. With the exisiting ACBL alert regulations, if I am making a 1D overcall, I need to have at least 4 diamonds for this to be considered a natural bid. However, if I am making a 2D overcall, I only need to have 3 diamonds. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO9mv1tZbGc4pZHvJEQKJoACdEOp/odZnlRuiDM0VVoZa/w30+4oAoLbY EoVvRNbVKjIh7nzr5cC5pTGf =5qiN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 05:28:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QJQjC20742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:26:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QJQdH20720 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:26:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [213.122.139.193] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15xCXF-0006X8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c15e53$50e0f0a0$c18b7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <000401c15e4e$b6b8a9e0$d7240b93@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 20:20:44 +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 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > As usual with the ACBL alert regulations, there are holes big enough > to drive a truck through. > Consider the following: > > Suppose I want to play a canape overcall style in which it is > permissable to overcall on a 3 card suit. > With the exisiting ACBL alert regulations, if I am making a 1D > overcall, I need to have at least 4 diamonds for this to be > considered a natural bid. > > However, if I am making a 2D overcall, I only need to have 3 > diamonds. Yes, but that's not a hole big enough for a flea. Whatever the nature of your diamond overcall, then (if it a potential canape), one imagines that the extent of your advance disclosure will be such that the opponents are prepared for most eventualities. I do not know whether canape overcalls on 3+ cards are permitted in any but the highest level of ACBL events - I would be surprised if so - and at the highest levels, no one actually cares what regulations may be in force, for the players adopt the standard approach of getting on with the game while not trying to hide behind the rules in order to gain some dubious advantage. We should not really be concerned with the extent to which obvious artificiality, or "unnaturalness", is alertable; what is important is to arrive at a state in which the opponents are informed of what they need to know, since this may significantly affect either their actions of their methods, and not informed of anything that they already know or can easily deduce, since this will not make a blind bit of difference. The extent to which almost all alerting regulations are unsuitable is a reflection of the fact that producing something (a) simple (b) comprehensive and (c) meeting the above objective in full, is an extremely complex one. It is not helped by the fact that different SOs (with widely differing memberships, bien entendu), assign different priorities to (a), (b) and (c) above. My feeling is that both the EBU and the ACBL do not give sufficient consideration to (c); the EBU puts (a) first, (b) second and (c) a distant third, while the ACBL puts (b) first, (a) second and (c) a close third. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 07:20:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QLI9u27284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:18:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f9QLI3H27280 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:18:04 +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 f9QLCKB13750 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007d01c15e62$bd636be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000401c15e4e$b6b8a9e0$d7240b93@isi.com> <000f01c15e53$50e0f0a0$c18b7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:07:09 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" . > > The extent to which almost all alerting regulations are unsuitable is a > reflection of the fact that producing something (a) simple (b) > comprehensive and (c) meeting the above objective in full, is an > extremely complex one. It is not helped by the fact that different SOs > (with widely differing memberships, bien entendu), assign different > priorities to (a), (b) and (c) above. My feeling is that both the EBU > and the ACBL do not give sufficient consideration to (c); the EBU puts > (a) first, (b) second and (c) a distant third, while the ACBL puts (b) > first, (a) second and (c) a close third. > And there are conflicting approaches to creating Alert regulations: (a) Alert conventions (b) Alert unexpected agreements Both are mixed together, and contradicted, in the ACBL Alert Procedure; e.g., -- 2-level signoff response to a 1NT opening, unexpected but not Alertable -- Michaels cue bid, conventional but not Alertable -- Splinter response to a 1M opening bid, expected but Alertable -- 2NT artificial response to a weak two bid, conventional but not Alertable We are told to Alert weak bids that sound strong, and strong bids that sound weak, with no indication of what "sound" means. A non-competitive raise of a weak 2S to 3S "sounds strong," but must be Alerted if strong. And does the 2S opening itself "sound" strong or weak? There has been a trend toward the simple rule of Alerting only what is unexpected, convention or not. However, "unexpected" varies from place to place, varies with time, and varies with the level of play. Also, some calls have meanings that are roughly 50-50 as to what they mean (e.g., penalty or takeout double). That makes it difficult for the rule-makers. I'd like to see a very few simple rules, easily remembered, such as requiring Alerts for: -- Non-penalty doubles after partner has acted -- Non-penalty doubles after one's side has bid notrump I would require no Alerts for agreements plainly shown on the Convention Card, and enforce current CC regulations (legible, complete, in plain view on the table). Players will be encouraged to tap the CC if partner makes a call whose meaning (or range) might be of interest to the opponents. Opponents will be expected to glance at the opposing CC whenever such a tap is made. For other agreements I would have a general instruction that if a player "could have known" that failure to Alert a bid whose agreed meaning is not near-universal might cause damage, the failure may be treated as MI. 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 Oct 27 08:46:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9QMjim27339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:45:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin10.bigpond.com (mailin10.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9QMjeH27335 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:45:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mailin10.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GLU4LB00.348 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:46:23 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-241.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.241]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V2.9k 8329/15490884); 27 Oct 2001 08:39:52 Message-ID: <007301c15e6e$eb828ea0$f1d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:38:22 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >We should not really be concerned with the extent to which >obvious artificiality, or "unnaturalness", is alertable; what is >important is to arrive at a state in which the opponents are >informed of what they need to know, since this may significantly >affect either their actions of their methods, and not informed of >anything that they already know or can easily deduce, since >this will not make a blind bit of difference. > >The extent to which almost all alerting regulations are unsuitable >is a reflection of the fact that producing something (a) simple (b) >comprehensive and (c) meeting the above objective in full, is an >extremely complex one. It is not helped by the fact that different >SOs (with widely differing memberships, bien entendu), assign >different priorities to (a), (b) and (c) above. My feeling is that >both the EBU and the ACBL do not give sufficient consideration >to (c); the EBU puts (a) first, (b) second and (c) a distant third, >while the ACBL puts (b) first, (a) second and (c) a close third. whereas the ABF (Australian Bridge Federation) and the WBF, while having vastly different Alerting Regulations from each other, place all the emphasis on (c) and (a) with no emphasis on (b). My impression is that bridge at WBF level and in Australia has few Alerting problems. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Oct 27 21:40:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RBcnG05798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 21:38:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9RBchH05794 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 21:38:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [217.35.17.38] (helo=[217.35.17.38]) by protactinium with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #6) id 15xRhk-0003rH-00; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:32:44 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: gordonrainsford@mail.btinternet.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 12:32:40 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Gordon Rainsford Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Cc: adam@irvine.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 9:35 am -0700 26/10/01, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Robin Barker wrote: > >> > David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > > >Here's a clearer example. >> > > > >> > > >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. >> > > > >> > > >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. >> > > >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should >>not be alerted. >> > > >> > > The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. >> > >> > Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems >> > to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be >> > "natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as >> > responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). >> > >> Unfortunately the EBU has a definition of "natural" for alerting purposes. >> >> "(a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any >> other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener >> rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of >> 2C in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural." > >Really??? So if partner opens 3H and I raise to 4H because I think we >can make 4H, my 4H bid is not considered "natural" because it doesn't >guarantee four hearts???? And if the next hand makes a takeout >double, the double has to be alerted because it's a tkaeout double of >a non-natural bid????????? The double would have to be alerted under EBU regulations in any case, because it's a takeout double of a suit above 3NT. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 28 00:23:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9REMAv05896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:22:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9REM5H05892 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:22:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011027141620.EMO939.femail5.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:16:20 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011027100859.008076e0@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, 27 Oct 2001 10:08:59 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <200110261627.RAA04360@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:27 PM 10/26/01 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: [1NT-2D-2H] >Unfortunately the EBU has a definition of "natural" for alerting purposes. > > "(a) a bid of a suit which shows that suit and says nothing about any > other suit; the suit shown will be at least four cards before opener > rebids but may be on three cards from then on; exceptionally a bid of > 2C in a 3=4=3=3 hand precisely in response to 1S is considered natural." > >Under this definition, 2H is not "natural". This definition is based on the assumption that the bid is in a new suit. A raise of partner's 1S opening to 2S is not natural by this definition, since it shows only three spades. Nor is a response of 3C to partner's unusual 2NT; this is a preference but is often three cards and may be a doubleton. A bid in a suit in which partner has shown values is natural if it shows sufficient values to make the suit an acceptable trump suit, or expresses a preference to play in that suit, and says nothing about any other suit. By this definition, a transfer completion is still not natural because it is a puppet and does not show a preference for playing in the suit or show the values for playing in the suit. However, all raises and preferences, even something like 1S-2D-2H-3D-3H-3S which may be a singleton, are natural. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 28 01:00:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RExvf08087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:59:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9RExpH08083 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b ([24.249.239.64]) by femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with SMTP id <20011027145401.GZV2467.femail15.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc664387-b> for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 07:54:01 -0700 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20011027104407.0080d240@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, 27 Oct 2001 10:44:07 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Played Card In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20011026081353.00b053f0@127.0.0.1> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011027094110.00ac9c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20011025111921.00b00270@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:19 AM 10/26/01 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:51 AM 10/27/01, Alain wrote: >>AG : isn't there just a teeny weeny little chance that declarer made >>two different designations with the intent of confusing the defenders >>? He could then, whatever the card played by RHO, claim he was playing >>the *other* ace and get a favorable ruling. And if he didn't, wasn't >>it at least theoretically possible ? > >That scenario just doesn't work. Suppose that if RHO had played a >spade, declarer would have claimed that he intended to play the CA. He >must then presumably have at least some valid rationale for that >claim. For that to be true, his original incomplete designation must >have left some room for ambiguity, which means that the SA was not >"incontrovertably designated" (as declarer would have had to have been >prepared to "controvert" it himself). The Law is even stronger here. If there are two aces, and declarer incompletely designates the SA, then the SA is designated unless it is incontrovertible that declarer meant the CA. However, this happened to me once. Dummy won the DA at trick 11 of a notrump contract, and the last two cards in dummy were the DJ and HJ. I was dummy's LHO with the DK and CQ, both high; dummy's HJ was high. Declarer called "Jack"; under the law, that means the jack of the suit just played, so I played the DK. Dummy also pushed the HJ forward rather than pulling it towards himself, and since I wasn't watching dummy at the time, I assumed that the DJ had been pulled back rather than the HJ pushed forward. When it turned out that declarer wanted the HJ, I called the TD, as I wouldn't have thrown the DK on the HJ, and wanted either two tricks (on the DJ lead) or one trick (on the HJ lead). The TD ruled that the DJ was the card played, and it was my own responsibility to know that, giving declarer both tricks. He didn't rule out of the book, but essentially he was saying that it was incontrovertible that declarer would play the good HJ rather than the losing DJ. A fair ruling would have been one trick, since that is what would have happened had declare properly said "Jack of hearts." It's reasonable for the TD to believe that declarer knew which jack was good, but that I didn't know that declarer knew this. It's also possible for the TD to rule that I paid insufficient attention to the game. Here's an alternative situation in which the one-trick ruling is clearer. - J J - T - K - - K - Q 7 A - - Assuming that declarer knows the DK is out, it is clear that declarer wanted to play the HJ because this gives him one trick. But East doesn't know who has the HA, so from East's point of view, either jack is equally reasonable, and he can assume that "jack" means the DJ. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 28 04:03:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RH30408210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 04:03:00 +1100 (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 f9RH2sH08206 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 04:02:55 +1100 (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 f9RGv9w18919 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003101c15f08$52e68260$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Kleinman's Appeal Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 09:56:14 -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 BLML comments, please... Danny Kleinman's REPORT OF AN APPEAL Matchpoints, both vul, West dealer S- Q8432 H- A10865 D- void C- AK2 (me) S- A7 S- J105 H- KJ974 H- Q D- QJ864 D- K5 C- 7 C- Q1098654 S- K96 H- 32 D- A109732 C- J3 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1H 1S pass (a) 3S (b) pass 4S 5C (c) double 5D (d) pass pass double All pass (a) East and West do not play weak jump shifts in competition. (b) North alerted. West requested an explanation, and North indicated that 3S was weak. North and South had one convention card on the table, but South had slid it under her bidding box so that little was visible. (c) A gambling bid that I made in full awareness that it could boomerang. In light of North's alert and explanation, I expected South to have at least four spades and little defensive strength, and therefore West to have a singleton or void in spades. (d) In light of my failure to make a negative double of 1S, or bid 4NT over 4S, West's 5D was a serious error. West's play in 5D was also very poor, but even with best play it was doomed to go down four or five. South is a woman whom I would judge to be of slightly greater than average skill. West is a regular client of mine, whose skill I would judge to be less than average. North is a man whom I would judge to be of near-expert skill. We have always greeted each other cordially. North and South have had a regular partnership for many years. The play ended with West folding his cards and conceding the last several tricks, so as dummy I did not get to see all the defenders' cards. Afterwards I asked to look at North's hand and was given permission to do so. I had been wondering ever since West followed to a second spade why North had overcalled 1S and, with only S-Qxxx, had carried on to 4S over the weak jump raise. When I saw North's fifth spade, I realized that it was South's 3S that was bizarre. South had a good 2S raise. To bid 3S as a Limit Raise would be a bit of a stretch, to bid 3S as a Weak Jump Raise outrageously wrong. Sliding the North-South convention card out from beneath South's bidding box, I saw for the first time that none of the three boxes for Jump Raises of overcalls was checked. Had Weak Jump Raises of overcalls been marked, I would have concluded *mistaken bid*, but with nothing marked, I concluded *mistaken explanation*. My understanding from what I'd read was that when the question "Mistaken bid or mistaken explanation?" arises, mistaken explanation is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary in the form of what is written on the convention card or in the pair's system notes (if any). It was then that I called for a director and requested an adjusted score, saying that I would have passed 4S had I not been misinformed. The director said he was letting the result stand, but might change it after consulting with other directors. When my partner and I received no notice of an adjustment, we appealed. Upon sitting before the Committee, I had no reason to believe that any Committee member was biased. The chairman instructed the parties to the appeal to talk to the Committee, not to each other, and not to interrupt while others were speaking, assuring us that everybody would have a chance to speak in turn. Then he asked, "Who's appealing?" When I replied, "I am," North said snidely, "Oh, I wouldn't say that," which I protested immediately, asking that a "Zero Tolerance" penalty be imposed. Gary Zeiger, the director who had presented the case, declined to impose one. Then the chairman turned to look directly at me and said angrily, "You were instructed to direct your remarks to me, not to each other." I replied that I was talking to the Committee. He grew red in the face, and another Committee member suggested to him that he had lost control and asked him to replace himself as Chairman. He declined. The Committee questioned South about the double of 5C at length, but did not say in my presence that it might have been suggested by the information that North had interpreted 3S as showing a weak distributional hand with primary spade support. By the time the Committee ruled, (for reasons that were not revealed) the Chairman had been replaced. The new chairman delivered the Committee's first three conclusions to South, North and me, the fourth only to me (West had left): (1) North and South did have an agreement to play South's 3S jump as weak, so 3S was a mistaken bid and no adjusted score was warranted. Though I was not told the basis on which the Committee made this determination of the facts, I was prepared to accept it as true. (2) North and South violated the convention card regulation that pairs are required to display two identical or equivalent convention cards, both completely and accurately filled out, for inspection by their opponents. For this infraction, the Committee penalized them 1 matchpoint on a 25 top. I was astounded by the minuscule size of the penalty, but said nothing. (3) The Committee considered my 5C bid to be a "wild gamble" and therefore an "egregious" error that negated any rights we might have had to redress even if I had been misinformed by West's alert and explanation. The Committee did not believe my statement that I would have passed had I thought South's 3S was a limit raise, and added that I should have known that South was a very bad player who might have just the kind of hand she did for a supposedly "weak" jump raise. I thought it outrageous and insulting that the Appeals Committee disbelieved my statement, but I said nothing. I thought it outrageous for anyone to tell me that I should have known that South's "weak" 3S jump could not be trusted. North, a regular partner of hers for many years, was better placed by far to know this. (4) The Appeals Committee reprimanded me (though not my partner) for appealing, saying that I "knew" we could not possibly obtain redress on appeal, and had presumably appealed just to cause trouble for our opponents and waste the committee's time. Then the Appeals Committee informed me that it was making a complaint to the District Recorder so that if I made any other appeals that were viewed similarly I could be hauled before a Disciplinary Committee, and warned me to watch my step. I view it as presumptuous for anyone to say that I could have known no redress was possible, that I would waste my own time as well as others' on an appeal that I "knew" to be bootless, or that I would act from the motives the Appeals Committee alleged. I have no idea why the Appeals Committee ruled as it did, but this reprimand and threat disturbed me far more than its apparently groundless ruling as to the facts of our opponents' agreements and derogatory characterization of my 5C bid (admittedly a gamble). Had the Appeals Committee stopped at (3), I would have walked away shaking my head in astonishment, but not upset. After (4), however, I felt it necessary to write this account. submitted by Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 28 05:44:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RIhMQ13858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 05:43:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9RIhGH13854 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 05:43:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15xYKl-0003y9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Oct 2001 18:37:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 17:12:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card References: <005901c15c53$de1a6fc0$b51597d4@swipnet.se> <5.1.0.14.1.20011024105510.00a22b30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011024105510.00a22b30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling writes >At 07:19 AM 10/24/01 +0100, you wrote: >>Some refer to law 58B3. Can you do that when a card (or two) are played from >>dummy? > > Since dummy's cards are visible cards played >by declarer, I see no reason why the law doesn't apply >to them exactly as it does to cards from declarer's hand. Let us look at this a little further. What Grant says here is so eminently correct. Other posters have said something similar. It is possible that David Burn's post mean this, but it was shrouded in mystery. If declarer leans over to dummy, picks up a card, and puts it down as played, then that is a played card under L45B. Sure, we may feel it was not a necessary way of doing it, and ask him not to do it again [or insist if he does this regularly] but this is a played card, or more correctly, a card that must be played under L45C3. If declarer picks up two cards, not one, and puts them down as played, then I do not see any doubt that L58B applies. That is clear. Now, suppose declarer designates a card, and designates a different card, what then? I suppose that since he has played two cards, we can decide that he has played two cards, so L58B applies. That seems in line with the Law, so if he says "play the club ace, and the spade ace" then L58B applies. How about where he designates one card, but uses more than one form of designation? Suppose he points to the club ace, and says "ace"? One card is played, not two, because saying "ace" refers to the club ace in some situations, one of which is if his intention is clear. So in this case L58B is not applicable. In the case that started this thread you cannot use L58B because declarer did not play two cards. He played one card, the spade ace. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 28 09:53:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RMpcJ19177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 09:51:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow029o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9RMpWH19173 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 09:51:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([62.30.228.158]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:45:48 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c15f39$a6ee6360$9ee41e3e@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: Subject: [BLML] Cruising Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:49:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hard life for some hey Cruising till Nov14th have fun mike -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 28 10:15:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RNEjY19207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:14:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9RNEaH19198 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:14:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15xcZK-000CBJ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:08:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 22:55:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <200110261627.RAA04360@tempest.npl.co.uk> <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200110261635.JAA21843@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >Really??? So if partner opens 3H and I raise to 4H because I think we >can make 4H, my 4H bid is not considered "natural" because it doesn't >guarantee four hearts???? And if the next hand makes a takeout >double, the double has to be alerted because it's a tkaeout double of >a non-natural bid????????? > >I think this definition of "natural" has a huge mistake in it, in that >it doesn't allow you to support (or return to, or take a preference >to) partner's suit. The above definition should be amended so that it >doesn't apply any time you're bidding a suit partner has previously >shown. And I think this mistake is so glaring that everyone other >than David Burn should simply assume that the rule doesn't apply when >bidding partner's suit. I think the ACBL's definition of "natural" >makes the same mistake, although I'd have to look it up to be sure. > >Come on, let's show some common sense here. It has been pointed out previously on BLML that there is a mistake in the definition of natural. It has been agreed that it needs a bit of fine tuning to stop the BLs, since we would rule an obviously natural bid as natural. I have explained that we only make changes with the new Orange book, and I have explained that I have made a note of this one. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Oct 28 10:15:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9RNEjV19206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:14:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9RNEaH19199 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:14:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15xcZK-000CBK-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:08:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:00:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct References: <7bNAmlCQ4A27EwiJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <200110261556.IAA20980@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200110261556.IAA20980@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >Here's a clearer example. >> > >> >1NT-P-2D(transfer)-P-2H-X. >> > >> >The 2H bid is not natural; in many partnerships, it denies four hearts. >> >However, this is a takeout double of hearts, and it should not be alerted. >> The 2H bid is not natural, so a t/o double of it requires an alert. >Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems >to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be >"natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as >responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). I do not see why the exception. If you bid a suit without showing anything in the suit and solely because a convention says you should do so I do not see why it is natural in one case and not another. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 29 00:36:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9SDYiE08200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:34:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (IDENT:qmailr@mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.16.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f9SDYcH08196 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:34:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 24937 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2001 13:21:48 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail with qmail-scanner-1.00 (sweep: 2.6/3.49. . Clean. Processed in 0.916139 secs); 28 Oct 2001 13:21:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.185) by mail.infogen.net.nz with SMTP; 28 Oct 2001 13:21:47 -0000 Message-ID: <007f01c16053$2079f4a0$ab15b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <200110252232.SAA05506@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 00:24:26 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card > > From: Grant Sterling > > This defender: > > a) Knew he wasn't watching declarer, even though > > declarers do sometimes indicate cards with a gesture. > > b) Knew the designation was incomplete ["Ace"], and that > > there were two aces in dummy, _and_, > > c) Saw dummy play the ace of trumps. > > I don't think c) was at all clear from the original description. Indeed this was not part of the original description. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 Mobile 025 667 1525 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 29 05:22:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9SIL4O03579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:21:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9SIKvH03567 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 05:20:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.21.212]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011028181508.BKRO13652.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:15:08 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c15fdc$7b5fbc00$d415ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Nothing changes. Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 18:15:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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 I have in my hand a book called "The Bridge Manual" a first edition written by John Doe and published in 1900. A novelty you might consider. However this book does not list all the laws of the game at that time - saying that the Portland and Turf Club produced rules which were complicated. Several are quoted, and the one that drew my attention was Rule 60 which allows for dummy to draw attention to dealer's lead from the wrong hand. The author expresses his opinion that this is wrong - that the law makers had got it wrong. Nothing changes does it. The author also says that " a really bad player will make about six glaring errors a day and will lose about five thousand points a month. Unless the Beginner can afford to pay somebody else's supper bills monthly, I recommend him to play farthing points to start with". Over 100 years and nothing changes does it? Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 29 22:27:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TBQdg07230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:26:39 +1100 (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 f9TBQXH07209 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:26:33 +1100 (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 MAA23802; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:19:24 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA19864; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:20:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030121458.02440890@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:20:49 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200110261556.IAA20980@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:56 26/10/2001 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Actually, I dispute the contention that 2H is not natural. It seems >to me that bidding a suit your partner has shown should always be >"natural" unless it has some specific conventional meaning (such as >responding 5H to Blackwood after your partner has bid hearts). AG : if you ask an old-fashioned expert what a natural bid is, he might well respond "a bid which names the contract one intends to play given the information gathered up to now." In that sense, 1NT-2D-2H is more natural than 1C-1S, which after all is conventional in that it demands a rebid. The French theorician Le Dentu distinguished between "natural bid" and "natural treatment" (ie a bid directly related to the denomination named, not necessarily to play it). My intuitive feeling is that both natural bids and natural treatments should always be considered natural for defense-vs-bid purposes (not necessarily for alert purposes). Regards, Alain. > -- Adam >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 29 22:31:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TBUxW08304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:30:59 +1100 (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 f9TBUrH08289 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:30:54 +1100 (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 MAA24567; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:23:45 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA23437; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:24:52 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030122358.02447d70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:25:12 +0100 To: "Richard Willey" , blML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <000401c15e4e$b6b8a9e0$d7240b93@isi.com> References: <004101c15e4c$55b168a0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:47 26/10/2001 -0700, you wrote: >Suppose I want to play a canape overcall style in which it is >permissable to overcall on a 3 card suit. >With the exisiting ACBL alert regulations, if I am making a 1D >overcall, I need to have at least 4 diamonds for this to be >considered a natural bid. > >However, if I am making a 2D overcall, I only need to have 3 >diamonds. AG : in Europe, it would be severely restricted (BSC) unlesss strong, which means it would not be percieved as natural. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Oct 29 22:41:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TBejF09442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:40:45 +1100 (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 f9TBedH09425 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:40:40 +1100 (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 MAA26139; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:33:31 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA01356; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:34:38 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030122714.024438a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:34:57 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <007d01c15e62$bd636be0$ce9b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <000401c15e4e$b6b8a9e0$d7240b93@isi.com> <000f01c15e53$50e0f0a0$c18b7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:07 26/10/2001 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >I would require no Alerts for agreements plainly shown on the Convention >Card, and enforce current CC regulations (legible, complete, in plain view >on the table). Players will be encouraged to tap the CC if partner makes a >call whose meaning (or range) might be of interest to the opponents. AG : this has been invented before. It was called the alert procedure. The Alert card was invented later. Then players began to complain about the non-alert of some bids, and the need to regulate was felt. Whether those regulations are of practical use is another matter. To cut it short, it would be easier if the Rules said that it is your responsibility that the opponents be informed of all they want to know, but it is simply unpracticable, because the feelings as to whether a bid is clearly understandable vary from person to person, as we have seen in many threads. I'm thus, as a second but more practical choice, close to Adam's view that one should have a simplified set of rules about alertability and stick to it. That is, give David's (a) an absolute priority, while taking (c) into account. Also ,it would mean less TD and AC calls. Best regards, alain. >Opponents will be expected to glance at the opposing CC whenever such a >tap is made. > >For other agreements I would have a general instruction that if a player >"could have known" that failure to Alert a bid whose agreed meaning is not >near-universal might cause damage, the failure may be treated as MI. > >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 Mon Oct 29 22:47:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TBlFW10782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:47:15 +1100 (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 f9TBl8H10757 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:47:08 +1100 (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 MAA27276; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:40:00 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA06491; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:41:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030123655.00ac1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:41:27 +0100 To: "David J. Grabiner" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] TO double of pass or correct In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20011027100859.008076e0@mail.rdc1.md.home.com> References: <200110261627.RAA04360@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:08 27/10/2001 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >By this definition, a transfer completion is still not natural because it >is a puppet and does not show a preference for playing in the suit or show >the values for playing in the suit. However, all raises and preferences, >even something like 1S-2D-2H-3D-3H-3S which may be a singleton, are natural. AG : I'm frightfully sorry. This definition is not practicable. Many play that a completion after double, ie 1NT-p-2H-X-2S shows 3 cards, thus is a raise and shows clear willingness to play the suit (I even disallow the bid on 4333 pattern because one might wish to play NT instead). If the present alert rules are to be followed, one should alert a TO double after 1NT-p-2H-p-2S, but not after 1NT-p-2H-X-2S. Who on earth would realise this without a full analysis, after which it would be too late to alert anyway ? Please give us David's (a) and forget about (b). The game is already too lawyerable. Regards, Alain. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 29 23:08:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TC7h612627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:07:43 +1100 (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 ([164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9TC7cH12623 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:07:38 +1100 (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 MAA11825; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:58:30 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA23503; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:01:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:01:51 +0100 To: "Anne Jones" , "blml" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Nothing changes. In-Reply-To: <001901c15fdc$7b5fbc00$d415ff3e@jones1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:15 28/10/2001 +0000, Anne Jones wrote: >The author also says that " a really bad player will make about six >glaring errors a day and will lose about five thousand points a month. >Unless the Beginner can afford to pay somebody else's supper bills >monthly, I recommend him to play farthing points to start with". > >Over 100 years and nothing changes does it? AG : one should remember that the bridge point scale was reviewed in the direction of bigger numbers, and that the slam premium was introduced, more than 20 years later. This means that your bad player would lose, not 5000 but (rough estimation) 20000 points a month. Nothing changes but three things : a) with the Vanderbilt scale, one's mistakes are more clearly felt - the numbers are bigger ; b) the standard for rubber bridge has worsened (ore the perception of errors has bettered) : 6 errors a day is not much in an ordinary 2001 rubber game ; c) the author seems to imply that the normal schedule for rubber bridge is to play each and every day. Is it still now ? Best regards, alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Oct 29 23:55:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TCtE312654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:55:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (mta06-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9TCt8H12650 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 23:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from anne ([62.255.4.60]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20011029124918.PZMQ13652.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@anne> for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:49:18 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c16078$1ee8cd80$3c04ff3e@jones1> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Nothing changes. Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:49:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-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: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Anne Jones" ; "blml" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Nothing changes. > At 18:15 28/10/2001 +0000, Anne Jones wrote: > > >The author also says that " a really bad player will make about six > >glaring errors a day and will lose about five thousand points a month. > >Unless the Beginner can afford to pay somebody else's supper bills > >monthly, I recommend him to play farthing points to start with". > > > >Over 100 years and nothing changes does it? > > AG : one should remember that the bridge point scale was reviewed in the > direction of bigger numbers, and that the slam premium was introduced, more > than 20 years later. This means that your bad player would lose, not 5000 > but (rough estimation) 20000 points a month. > Nothing changes but three things : > a) with the Vanderbilt scale, one's mistakes are more clearly felt - the > numbers are bigger ; > b) the standard for rubber bridge has worsened (ore the perception of > errors has bettered) : 6 errors a day is not much in an ordinary 2001 > rubber game ; > c) the author seems to imply that the normal schedule for rubber bridge is > to play each and every day. Is it still now ? > > Best regards, > > alain. I agree Alain - I suspect the perception of what is an error has changed. Still the fact that the cost of losing was painful persists. Many still play rubber bridge daily, but it would seem that it was the expectation then - bridge players were addicts. We are not now of course - lol. Since the advent of online bridge I think there are many more who play some form of bridge daily. cheers Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 01:32:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TEVTx13107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:31:30 +1100 (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 f9TEVKH13078 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:31:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.85]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9TEPTT07165 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:25:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BDD6439.BB9DFCBF@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:14:17 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A doubly irrational claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I refer the readers to the last appeal from Tenerife, in which the AC of the EBL decided that in cashing "known" winners, a player shall play all suits first equally likely, apart from trumps, which are cashed last. Thus, the line that this AC considered a normal one would not be so in EBL AC terms. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Contract: 2H by West, imps > > North > 2 > --- > --- > J87 > West Dummy > J10 8 > Q --- > --- --- > 9 A105 > South (me) > K95 > --- > --- > 6 > > North's opening lead had been a low > club to my queen and West's king. > > In the four card ending, the lead was in > dummy. Declarer needed three out of the > four remaining tricks to make 2H. > > However, West claimed all four tricks, > having forgotten the spade king was > outstanding. > > The TD ruled one off, on this line: > > 1. Spade, ducked to the jack > 2. Heart queen, club six discard > 3. Spade ten *cashed* > > If West played that way, would it be: > > a) careless or inferior? > b) irrational for some but not others? > c) always irrational? > irrational > Furthermore, if West had not claimed, > it would have been irrational for me > to have ducked my spade king - declarer > then gets an overtrick by taking the > 67%+ club finesse. > > Can a future irrational but successful > NOS play be included in a TD's evaluation > of an OS incorrect claim? > yes it can. Defenders are called Garozzo-Belladonna (but not Lauria-Versace **) after a claim. (** reference to a 6NT contract made by Hamman-Soloway in the Paris QF that will probably be buried so as to protect defenders) > Best wishes > > Richard > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 01:32:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TEVTM13101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:31:29 +1100 (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 f9TEVIH13073 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:31:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.85]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9TEPOT07129 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:25:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BDD5BB1.4D468A27@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 14:37:53 +0100 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] Played Card References: <5.1.0.14.1.20011017134854.00a140e0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018113750.00a09470@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011018134506.00a10300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011019102302.00a20d30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3BD28A5B.29C9CC5F@village.uunet.be> <006f01c15ae3$a28b51c0$cf9c7ad5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have just returned from Paris, and I can't believe this thread is still going on. David Burn wrote: > > HdW wrote: > > > I thought we had already established that : > > > > - the Ace of Spades has been played in this trick; > > No, Herman. That is something you have established in your own mind, > because you accept that the declarer's designation of the ace of spades > is complete. either that or that the intention is incontrovertible. In either case the SA is the played card. If you wish to continue to dispute the facts then do so without me. > But there are those who do not believe this, and to them, > it has not been established at all that the ace of spades is a played > card. The ace of clubs has been played to this trick; the ace of spades > may be substituted for it if the TD so rules; but until that happens, it > has not been played. > Well, the ruling is that the Ace of Spades has been played. Again, I am not interested in the case if the TD rules that the AC is the played card. There is no problem in that case. So please stop analysing the case, unless you believe that there is a different approach to the C7 depending on the way you arrive at the SA as the played card. I do not believe such a distinction is important in dealing with the C7. > > - there is a problem with the seven of clubs; > > There isn't. Until the TD makes a judgement regarding the ace of spades, > the seven of clubs is a card legally played at East's turn to play. If > the TD allows a change to the ace of spades, then the seven of clubs may > be withdrawn without penalty; otherwise, it will remain on the table > until the current (club) trick is completed. > Well, if you are so certain that there is no problem, why are we having this discussion then. I too believe that the C7 may be withdrawn, but some people are not certain. If everyone agrees, why is the thread still continuing ? > > - everyone seems to agree that this card should be able to > > be retracted without penalty (and as UI to declarer); > > How do they imagine that this can happen, since (if the ace of spades is > played and the ace of clubs is not), the seven of clubs is an > unestablished revoke? Of course, those who do not think that the ace of > spades is played will have no difficulty in returning the seven of clubs > to the defender's hand. But under what Law are you proposing to do it? > That is indeed the problem. So unless you have suddenly become the world's most legalistic director, who says to the player - "since the CA has never been played, you have now revoked" we need to rule in a sane manner. > > Most people have, by now, come to the conclusion that there > > is no "change" of card, and that by the letter of the law > > L45C4 and L47C should not apply. > > If not those, then which? You really cannot say: "we want to give the > man his club back, but we can't think of a Law under which to do it, so > we will invoke the Spirit of the Game" (or some other phantom). > Yet that is what we propose to do - what do you propose ? Produce some phantom by which the CA _has_ been played and changed ? As (Grant?) pointed out, that is simply not true by a literal reading of the laws. > > I am certain that at some time in the near future, the WBFLC > > will adapt the Laws or give an interpretation to fully > > complete this. > > Do not, as they say, hold your breath. > It was not among the 24 items on the agenda of the WBFLC this week. > > I believe this matter is settled. Not a lot of matters ever > > get settled on blml, so please let's stop arguing about > > cases that are! > > Herman, if you believe that: > > the ace of spades is a played card, but the ace of clubs is not; and yet > the seven of clubs may be withdrawn without penalty > > then this matter is very far from settled. > > David Burn > London, England > David, if you don't believe it is settled, then what do you propose to do about it ? Argue until Montreal ? Or until 2007 ? David, we are in agreement, I think that should be enough. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 01:54:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TEshX17330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:54:43 +1100 (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 f9TEsaH17314 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:54:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-158-85.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.158.85]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9TEmiB10595 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:48:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BDD6CC0.960C4CF4@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:50:40 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] A doubly irrational claim References: <3BDD6439.BB9DFCBF@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > > yes it can. Defenders are called Garozzo-Belladonna (but > not Lauria-Versace **) after a claim. > > (** reference to a 6NT contract made by Hamman-Soloway in > the Paris QF that will probably be buried so as to protect > defenders) > The story is on p17 of bul8 -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 04:33:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9THWBP24124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 04:32:11 +1100 (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 f9THW5H24120 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 04:32:05 +1100 (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 f9THPIY19312; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:25:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20011029105724.00a17d90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:26:45 -0600 To: "Wayne Burrows" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: In-Reply-To: <007f01c16053$2079f4a0$ab15b9d2@laptop> References: <200110252232.SAA05506@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:24 AM 10/29/01 -0800, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > From: Grant Sterling > > > This defender: > > > a) Knew he wasn't watching declarer, even though > > > declarers do sometimes indicate cards with a gesture. > > > b) Knew the designation was incomplete ["Ace"], and that > > > there were two aces in dummy, _and_, > > > c) Saw dummy play the ace of trumps. > > > > I don't think c) was at all clear from the original description. > >Indeed this was not part of the original description. I am virtually certain that the original description said that dummy played the ace of trumps. I _thought_ that it said that dummy played the ace of trumps before it said that RHO followed with a club. In any case, in several of my comments to the list I clearly stated the facts as I understood them and said "if what actually happened was different, then my evaluation might be different". I am certain that no-one corrected me on any of those occasions. So what did happen? 1) RHO followed with a club before dummy had played any card at all? I have a little more sympathy for defender then, but not that much, since I strongly disapprove of following suit before dummy places the card in the played position, since it causes too many problems like the one at hand, or "Why is dummy playing the 8?--I could have sworn you said 'Ace'! I would never have played low if I had known." Etc. I am aware that some may argue that dummy's card is considered played as soon as it is named, so defender doesn't need to wait to see dummy physically place it in the played position before contributing to the trick. This might be true in cases where the card is fully named [per L45B and L46A], although even then I think it is better practice to wait. I certainly think one should wait in cases of incomplete designation. While there is no law that requires this, it does have the advantage of reducing hard feelings on many occasions [as confusions can be sorted out before damage has been done], as well as having the additional advantage that it protects you from TDs like me who might regard your play as a revoke if the suit you follow to is not the suit I think was incontrovertibly intended. 2) Dummy played the ace of trumps, but RHO didn't see it and then played a club? Unless dummy is using stealth cards, this must mean that RHO didn't even look at the dummy before playing his card to the trick, and in that case I agree with DWS that he was paying insufficient attention to the game. 3) The original description [or my memory of it] was wrong--dummy played the ace of clubs. In that case I am definately going to rule that RHO gets to take his club back w/o penalty, and declarer will have to do some quick talking to convince me that he intended the ace of trumps at all. 4) I'm missing a possibility. >Wayne Burrows 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 Tue Oct 30 07:25:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TKNDQ01307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:23:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9TKN5H01292 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:23:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from karel600mhz (p-airlock225.esatclear.ie [194.165.169.225]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA31875 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:17:09 GMT From: "Karel De Raeymaeker" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:23:01 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi again Pairs - contract some number of spades After a few rounds the following position arose RHO Dummy Declarer S x S AJx H AKxxx H Qxx D - D - C - C - LHO S 9 H - D QTx C xx Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows "Ruffing & drawing trumps" LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? Karel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 07:43:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TKfjv05685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:41:45 +1100 (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 f9TKfcH05670 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:41:39 +1100 (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 f9TKZjq29447; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:35:45 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9TKZjd23169; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:35:45 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:35:45 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Karel De Raeymaeker cc: blml Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > Hi again > > > > Pairs - contract some number of spades > > After a few rounds the following position arose > > RHO > > Dummy Declarer > S x S AJx > H AKxxx H Qxx > D - D - > C - C - > > LHO > S 9 > H - > D QTx > C xx > > > Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > > "Ruffing & drawing trumps" > > LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? 6 tricks to declarer. The statement suggest that declarer plans to ruff in hand and play trumps from that side. He didn't say "ruff in dummy, cross to a heart, draw trumps". Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As long as you don't tell your friends how I played the hand, then I won't tell my friends how you defended it. (Anonymous) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 07:44:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TKhRe06011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:43:27 +1100 (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 f9TKhLH05992 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 07:43:21 +1100 (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 MAA12687; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:37:31 -0800 Message-Id: <200110292037.MAA12687@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Oct 2001 20:23:01 GMT." Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:37:31 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > Hi again > > > > Pairs - contract some number of spades > > After a few rounds the following position arose > > RHO > > Dummy Declarer > S x S AJx > H AKxxx H Qxx > D - D - > C - C - > > LHO > S 9 > H - > D QTx > C xx > > > Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > > "Ruffing & drawing trumps" > > LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? I'd be inclined to allow the claim; the claim statement seems to make it obvious that declarer plans to ruff at trick 8 and play the ace of trumps at trick 9, which means he intends to ruff in his hand since he could not play the ace of trumps at T9 if he ruffs in dummy. I could be persuaded otherwise. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 08:24:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TLNkQ12827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:23:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9TLNeH12804 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:23:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f9TLH1h14096; Mon, 29 Oct 2001 16:17:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.1.20011029105724.00a17d90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <200110252232.SAA05506@cfa183.harvard.edu> <5.1.0.14.1.20011029105724.00a17d90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:10:39 -0400 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:26 AM -0600 10/29/01, Grant Sterling wrote: > I am virtually certain that the original description >said that dummy played the ace of trumps. The original description was that declarer pointed to the spades, and said "ace". Or said "ace" and pointed to the spades. It was not entirely clear that these were "simultaneous" designations. IAC, dummy put the SA in the played position, and his LHO played the C7. > So what did happen? > 1) RHO followed with a club before dummy had played >any card at all? nope. > 2) Dummy played the ace of trumps, but RHO didn't see >it and then played a club? yep. > 3) The original description [or my memory of it] >was wrong--dummy played the ace of clubs. Seems to me this is where the controversy lies - or at least, where it did originally. One school held that "ace" is an incomplete designation, and so L46B applies, and the CA was played. The other holds that the combination of "ace" and pointing to spades is a complete designation, and the SA is played - or at least that declarers intention was incontrovertible, which amounts to the same thing. Frankly, I have no idea what the current state of the discussion is. Maybe we should take a formal poll. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBO93HYr2UW3au93vOEQLNHQCeJ7G+Zlt2WBkyPTZmzUdjM474O6EAn2py MmJ/PJUiinXE8iW01Cc/aU/X =d8WG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 10:51:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9TNof503507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:50:41 +1100 (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 f9TNobH03503 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:50:37 +1100 (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 KAA07969 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:54:01 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:31:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Played Card To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 10:43:04 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/10/2001 10:36:43 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >Seems to me this is where the controversy lies - or at least, >where it did originally. One school held that "ace" is an >incomplete designation, and so L46B applies, and the CA was >played. The other holds that the combination of "ace" and >pointing to spades is a complete designation, and the SA is >played - or at least that declarers intention was >incontrovertible, which amounts to the same thing. > >Frankly, I have no idea what the current state of the >discussion is. Maybe we should take a formal poll. :-) If polled, I would vote None Of The Above. I sit on the fence, stating that the CA was played, but also stating that it was declarer's incontrovertible intention to play the SA. Therefore, as TD, I would allow the SA to be played, but I would also allow declarer's RHO to withdraw their club card without penalty. 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 Oct 30 13:02:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9U21XL05697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:01:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9U21QH05693 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:01:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 15yO7m-000Pbk-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:55:34 +0000 Message-ID: <8C8VC2EvLg37EwK3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 01:31:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel De Raeymaeker writes >Hi again >Pairs - contract some number of spades > >After a few rounds the following position arose > > RHO > >Dummy Declarer >S x S AJx >H AKxxx H Qxx >D - D - >C - C - > > LHO > S 9 > H - > D QTx > C xx > > >Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > >"Ruffing & drawing trumps" > >LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? I would shoot LHO for wasting the declarer's time. Am I joking? Not entirely. LHO is what is known as a Bridge Lawyer. He knows perfectly well that declarer is going to ruff in his own hand and draw trumps because to ruff in dummy is irrational considering the stated line. He is seeking to gain an unfair advantage through the rules, hoping for a TD having an off day. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango's birthday is on 11th November Emails to Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 13:12:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9U2CJv05713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:12:20 +1100 (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 f9U2CDH05709 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:12:14 +1100 (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 CAA20986 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:06:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:05:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Nothing changes. References: <001901c15fdc$7b5fbc00$d415ff3e@jones1> <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 18:15 28/10/2001 +0000, Anne Jones wrote: > >>The author also says that " a really bad player will make about six >>glaring errors a day and will lose about five thousand points a month. >>Unless the Beginner can afford to pay somebody else's supper bills >>monthly, I recommend him to play farthing points to start with". >> >>Over 100 years and nothing changes does it? > >AG : one should remember that the bridge point scale was reviewed in the >direction of bigger numbers, and that the slam premium was introduced, more >than 20 years later. This means that your bad player would lose, not 5000 >but (rough estimation) 20000 points a month. >Nothing changes but three things : >a) with the Vanderbilt scale, one's mistakes are more clearly felt - the >numbers are bigger ; >b) the standard for rubber bridge has worsened (ore the perception of >errors has bettered) : 6 errors a day is not much in an ordinary 2001 >rubber game ; I'd go along with that figure over about 50 hands. I'm happy if I make one costly error every 20 hands. I win at that error rate. >c) the author seems to imply that the normal schedule for rubber bridge is >to play each and every day. Is it still now ? > If it were that a gentleman did his business in the morning, visited his friends in the afternoon and went to his club in the evening then he would play about three hours, say three days a week, leaving town for the weekend. 36 hours at about 14 hands an hour is about 500 hands. He will play and bid half a trick worse than he could, dropping a game every twenty or thirty hands and a part score every 10 For every hundred hands he'll drop 4 games, 2 vulnerable for 2000, 10 part scores for about 2000. I'd estimate he'd drop about 4000 points per hundred hands, or 20000 points a month. This equates to losing 200 rubber points (we score by 100's, remember) in 36 hours, or 6 points an hour to the table. At his peak, Jonathan Cansino won 3 points an hour in the tough rubber bridge clubs in London. I can see a poor player losing 6 points an hour as about a maximum. >Best regards, > > alain. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 13:15:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9U2Ex305726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:14:59 +1100 (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 f9U2ErH05722 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:14:53 +1100 (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 CAA20990 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:09:04 GMT Message-ID: <29scTvAetg37EwIh@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 02:07:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Karel De Raeymaeker writes >Hi again > > > >Pairs - contract some number of spades > >After a few rounds the following position arose > > RHO > >Dummy Declarer >S x S AJx >H AKxxx H Qxx >D - D - >C - C - > > LHO > S 9 > H - > D QTx > C xx > > >Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > >"Ruffing & drawing trumps" > >LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? > "Don't waste my time in future" If he ruffs in dummy he can't draw trump. I'd warn LHO. > >Karel > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Oct 30 22:15:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9UBEmx18462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:14:48 +1100 (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 f9UBEfH18449 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 22:14:42 +1100 (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 MAA12995; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:07:31 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA06544; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:08:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030120554.00abfb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:08:58 +0100 To: "Karel De Raeymaeker" , "blml" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:23 29/10/2001 +0000, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: >Pairs - contract some number of spades > >After a few rounds the following position arose > > RHO > >Dummy Declarer >S x S AJx >H AKxxx H Qxx >D - D - >C - C - > > LHO > S 9 > H - > D QTx > C xx > > >Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > >"Ruffing & drawing trumps" > >LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? AG : I rule that the intent of declarer was clearly to ruff in his hand and draw two rounds of trumps, after which he'll make all tricks. Saying 'I ruff and draw trumps' means he will ruff in his hand ; else he would not be able to draw trumps. In other words, ruffing in dummy is not consistent with the line of play as stated. The TD may not compel declarer to ruff in dummy. 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 Oct 31 00:14:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9UDCxO27334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:12:59 +1100 (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 f9UDCrH27330 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:12:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9UD71w05264 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:07:01 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:07 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Nothing changes. 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > b) the standard for rubber bridge has worsened (ore the perception of > errors has bettered) : 6 errors a day is not much in an ordinary 2001 > rubber game ; The actual text said *glaring* errors. There are, regrettably, few players at the Wood with that sort of strike rate. Minor mistakes and poor views are more common. > c) the author seems to imply that the normal schedule for rubber bridge > is to play each and every day. Is it still now ? It is for many at the Wood, again regrettably, I have work and marital commitments that prevent this. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 31 21:07:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VA6JE01074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:06:19 +1100 (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 f9VA6CH01070 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:06:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-88.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.88]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.6/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f9VA0HT00236 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:00:18 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3BDEC078.69441E18@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:00:08 +0100 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] Picky or is there a case ?? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011030120554.00abfb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > At 20:23 29/10/2001 +0000, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > >Pairs - contract some number of spades > > > >After a few rounds the following position arose > > > > RHO > > > >Dummy Declarer > >S x S AJx > >H AKxxx H Qxx > >D - D - > >C - C - > > > > LHO > > S 9 > > H - > > D QTx > > C xx > > > > > >Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > > > >"Ruffing & drawing trumps" > > > >LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule ?? > > AG : I rule that the intent of declarer was clearly to ruff in his hand and > draw two rounds of trumps, after which he'll make all tricks. > Saying 'I ruff and draw trumps' means he will ruff in his hand ; else he > would not be able to draw trumps. In other words, ruffing in dummy is not > consistent with the line of play as stated. The TD may not compel declarer > to ruff in dummy. > It may well surprise you, or probably not. I am not completely at agreement with the almost unanimous verdict on this case. You're all looking at the cards. "obviously he intends to ruff in hand". But is that all that obvious ? Maybe while speaking about ruffing the player waved to the table ! It's up to the TD to decide whether or not the player intended to ruff in hand or not. We cannot do so from a distance. As it stands, I would believe declarer if he told me that he did intend to ruff in hand. But I'd like to hear his version and intonation, and opponents' as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 31 21:30:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VATlN01095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:29:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ghost4.onet.pl (ghost4.onet.pl [213.180.128.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9VATbH01091 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:29:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [217.153.105.20] ([217.153.105.20]:47364 "HELO kavanagh") by ghost4 with SMTP id ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:23:29 +0100 Message-ID: <007d01c161f5$312e8a60$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011030120554.00abfb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3BDEC078.69441E18@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:17:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? > But is that all that obvious ? Maybe while speaking about > ruffing the player waved to the table ! Nie wodz mnie na pokuszenie Ojcow moich wielki Boze Wszak gdy wstapil w progi moje Wlos mu z glowy spasc nie moze Herman, are you serious? If you are and if your view is supported by TFLB then pictures should be added to the Laws (as they were added the football laws) demonstrating the claim procedure. Just imagine the TD approaching the table and asking: "Did you wave to the table, sir?". The more important question is: how to pull back 23 IMPs in 32 boards? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland -- Zamow odbitki ze zdjec cyfrowych lub archiwum zdjec na CD! [ http://lab.foto.onet.pl/laboratorium.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 Oct 31 23:06:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VC5JU02411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:05:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hermes.bmc.uu.se (hermes.bmc.uu.se [130.238.39.245]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f9VC5DH02407 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:05:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from terveen (terveen.ytbioteknik.uu.se [130.238.44.17]) by hermes.bmc.uu.se (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-62649U1500L1000S0V35) with SMTP id se for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:59:13 +0100 Message-ID: <005e01c16203$795dd120$112cee82@ytbioteknik.uu.se> From: Rik.Terveen@ytbioteknik.uu.se (Rik Terveen) To: "BLML" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 12:59:20 +0100 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: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? > > > > At 20:23 29/10/2001 +0000, Karel De Raeymaeker wrote: > > > > >Pairs - contract some number of spades > > > > > >After a few rounds the following position arose > > > > > > RHO > > > > > >Dummy Declarer > > >S x S AJx > > >H AKxxx H Qxx > > >D - D - > > >C - C - > > > > > > LHO > > > S 9 > > > H - > > > D QTx > > > C xx > > > > > > > > >Lho is on lead and leads the DQ. Declarer now claims as follows > > > > > >"Ruffing & drawing trumps" > > > > > >LHO calls the director and disputes the claim. What do you rule?? > > * snip* > > It may well surprise you, or probably not. > I am not completely at agreement with the almost unanimous > verdict on this case. > > You're all looking at the cards. "obviously he intends to > ruff in hand". > > But is that all that obvious ? Maybe while speaking about > ruffing the player waved to the table ! What would you do if you would be called at the table and LHO says: 'I don't think the claim is correct.' Would you ask LHO whether declarer waved at the dummy? Or would you look at the cards and say that it's obvious that declarer meant to ruff in hand? In other words, if declarer had waived to the table, LHO would have mentioned it when he called the TD and it would have been part of the original posting. > It's up to the TD to decide whether or not the player > intended to ruff in hand or not. We cannot do so from a > distance. I fully agree. But this is true for every case we discuss. Maybe we should have a standard disclaimer, stating that our views are solely based on the facts that were given in the posting and that there could be more relevant information out there. > As it stands, I would believe declarer if he told me that he > did intend to ruff in hand. But I'd like to hear his > version and intonation, and opponents' as well. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > Rik ter Veen -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Oct 31 23:37:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f9VCbXC02436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:37:33 +1100 (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 f9VCbQH02432 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:37:27 +1100 (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 NAA00967; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:30:13 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA08656; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:31:21 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011031132252.00ac9c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:31:42 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Picky or is there a case ?? In-Reply-To: <3BDEC078.69441E18@village.uunet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011030125553.00ab9b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20011030120554.00abfb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f9VCbTH02433 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:00 30/10/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >It may well surprise you, or probably not. >I am not completely at agreement with the almost unanimous >verdict on this case. AG : you don't surprise me. I would be rather more surprised if you did in fact agree with me (HHO½K) >You're all looking at the cards. "obviously he intends to >ruff in hand". > >But is that all that obvious ? Maybe while speaking about >ruffing the player waved to the table ! > >It's up to the TD to decide whether or not the player >intended to ruff in hand or not. We cannot do so from a >distance. AG : it is up to the TD to make the player repeat one's statement, and to imagine the play according to the statement. Here, it means ruffing at trick 9 and pulling trumps at trick 10, which can only be achieved by ruffing (or overrruffing dummy's trump) in his hand. The leeway given to the TD and AC in deciding how the play would have gone doesn't include lines of play that go against the statement. If I was the declarer, and was sure of the position (which I seldom am), I could even have choosen the spectacular line of ruffing and overruffing myself. This is, after all, the only line consistent with both the statement and the waving of the hand. And it is not irrational, only ostentatious :) Best regards, alain. >As it stands, I would believe declarer if he told me that he >did intend to ruff in hand. But I'd like to hear his >version and intonation, and opponents' as well. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/